std.database

[Erik Smith via Digitalmars-d]

> I suggest you call the package stdx.db - it is not (and may not 
> become) a standard package, so `std` is out of question. If it 
> is supposed to be *proposed* as standard package, then `stdx` 
> is good because that is what some people have used in the past 
> (while others used the ugly std.experimental. for the same 
> purpose).
>
> I humbly believe that this effort **must** be collaborative as 
> such package is doomed to fail if done wrong.

I totally agree that it must be collaborative and community 
driven.  I failed to add the proposed qualifier in this thread - 
sorry about that.   Right now I'm just trying to put together 
enough of a substantive design to be worthy of  discussion.   
While I'm presenting a design the way I think it should work, I'm 
definitely asking for feedback and especially opposition to any 
aspect of it.   My package name choice is just an example, the 
package name would have to be changed to whatever the "D 
committee" thinks is appropriate.

erik