The path to unity

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> With the druntime project, we now have a run time which is shared between
> Tango and Phobos. This is a huge step forward, but it's still not much use
> without some common user code.
>
> The highest priorities which I see are, in order:
> (1) the C standard library
> tango.stdc = std.stdc
> (2) low-level compiler-related modules
> most of tango.core -- for the most part, this is already part of druntime.
> (3) tango.math.Math + tango.math.IEEE  = std.math - tgamma().
>
> Can we get agreement on unification of these, at least?

I agree with that.  tango.stdc.posix is also far more complete than
what is in Phobos and would be beneficial to everyone.

> If we are able to reach agreement on this, I propose the next step would be
> to ensure that the contents of these files be made "identical" on Phobos2
> and Tango. ("identical" meaning that when the Tango code is ported to D2, it
> will be identical to the Phobos2 version, except for module name
> differences).
>
> Doing this will not give us very many immediate benefits. It will break a
> very small amount of code, but only in fairly trivial ways. In doing so, it
> will remove the subtle inconsistencies between the libraries.
> From there, the next step (quick to implement, but requiring political
> agreement <g>) would be to decide on a common namespace. Since this first
> step is much less political, I'd like to get agreement to do it now.

Hmmmmm.  Name for a common namespace...... How about.... "common".