Phango

[renoX]

Lars Ivar Igesund a écrit :
> renoX wrote:
> 
>> Kris a écrit :
>>> There's a fair chance the poster below is actually Janice, but just in
>>> case there really is someone voicing an honest opinion there, read on ...
>> Uh? That's my honest opinion: when contributors add new code in a
>> project, reusing the same style as the other code is a sign of
>> professional/mature programmers (ok, amateurish was too strong sorry)
> 
> Indeed, and Tango is quite a different project from Phobos (not counting the
> runtime).

*Sigh*, would you have a look at the big picture please?

People wants to use both Tango and Phobos, that's why there have been 
complaints of incompatibility between both.

Tango will be made compatible with Phobos in D2.0, that's very nice but 
one step even better than compatibility is coherence.

Phobos is the default standard library, so the true question is not "why 
project XXX should use the same way as Phobos?" but "why project XXX 
didn't use the 'Phobos way'?".

A valid answer could be "this part of Phobos sucks because YYY", that 
would be okay: nobody claimed that Phobos is perfect, just that it is 
the default.

So in this case, why Phobos convention of module naming isn't good enough?
For me, it is.

Regards,
renoX