STL in std

[Derek Parnell]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:57:40 -0500, Paul Anderson wrote:

> While I appreciate the addition of the Standard Template Library to phobos in 2.008, I have misgivings about the package name(s). Rather than naming them std.algorithm, std.functional, etc., how about stl.algorithm, stl.functional, etc., i.e., STL rather than STD. Or, if the similarity is too confusing, std.stl.algorithm, std.stl.functional,...
> 
> I know there is an ongoing flat (phobos) vs. hierarchical (Tango) debate, but this seems to me to be a clear case for using a distinct package (or subpackage) name: a group of interrelated modules that are (more or less) independent of other packages.
> 
> The alternative seems to be an ever-lengthening list of std.betterbeverydescriptive packages.
> 
> I hope since this is a very recent addition it won't cause a lot of work to rename them in the next release. 
> 
> Anyone else feel the same way?

I don't think its such a good idea. It implies that templates are a special
case. As most of phobos was written before we had templates, most of its
contents are not in template form, but I can see that over time these will
be templated. Do when then move them from std. to stl. ? I don't think so.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell