Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Don]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> IUnknown wrote:
>>>> Regarding Phobos + Tango, the minimum I expect is things like
>>>> containers, algorithm and common math stuff to be in one core module.
>>>
>>> This is already bound to be an issue because there is disagreement on 
>>> how e.g. containers should look like (Java-style vs. STL-style). 
>>> Which should be chosen? This naturally influences how algorithms are 
>>> defined.
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>>
>> The analogy with KDE vs Gnome doesn't seem valid to me -- most 
>> libraries will work regardless of which GUI library is chosen. 
>> Programmers can still rely on the Posix and C standard libraries.
> 
> I agree.
> 
>> Can we work out the math stuff at least? There's no difference between 
>> Phobos and Tango there. All we need is an agreement on common module 
>> naming (eg, create core.math).
> 
> That would be great. I don't think that's a major issue anyway. If I 
> were you, to be compatible with today's state of affairs, I'd simply put 
> in the makefile the code necessary for switching the module prefixes.

It means that any code which uses a library based on both Tango and a 
library based on Phobos will end up with two copies of all of the 
functions, and they'll have different name mangling etc. You end up with 
two incompatible Bigints, for example, even though they have identical 
code inside.

>> By the way, Andrei, this is exactly the kind of attitude which I was 
>> ranting about. There are clear areas of duplicated code (fortunately 
>> much of it is in druntime now), and even Tango's containers still seem 
>> to be in a state of flux (the old container library is deprecated, and 
>> very little of Tango is currently using containers).
>> Everyone -- can we be productive instead of dismissive, please?
> 
> I think you're reading significantly more into what I wrote than I meant 
> to put in.

Good to hear.

> 
> 
> Andrei