Tango - shallower hierarchy (was: Phango - questions)

[Chad J]

Sean Kelly wrote:
...
> 
> By the way, I know you may consider it an implementor point of view, but 
> another reason for core being distinct was motivated by distribution 
> concerns.  It is currently possible to ship and use a Tango library 
> containing only core, stdc, and sys (the latter two for their C 
> headers).  Spreading this functionality out would make for a more 
> confusing core/runtime distribution if we ever decide to do so.  Such 
> modularity was originally intended to be a selling point of the library, 
> and I will admit to have been somewhat surprised that most people don't 
> seem to care about it.
> 
> 
> Sean

FWIW, I do like the modularity.

As evidenced by my other post, I am in the camp that thinks the 
module/package layout is mostly for the implementor's own use, and the 
users should use more appropriate search tactics that don't rely on some 
kind of a priori knowledge of Tango's terminology and structure.