The path to unity

[Chris R Miller]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> 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".

I was thinking about keeping it simple.

Either migrate tango to std (and keep module aliases for tango for a 
while to help give people some leniency while they update their code) or 
perhaps move the whole mess to a new namespace: d (duh!)

Just my $0.02 on that subject...