digitalmars.D - C-style module names in Phobos
- Andy Friesen (6/6) Jul 18 2004 Can we not do this? :)
- clayasaurus (4/10) Jul 18 2004 Makes sense to me. There only problem is that it would break compatibili...
- J C Calvarese (13/29) Jul 18 2004 I've been thinking the same thing.
-
Carlos Santander B.
(43/43)
Jul 18 2004
"J C Calvarese"
- Regan Heath (14/56) Jul 18 2004 I thought std.c.stdio was named as such because it is a wrapper for c
-
Carlos Santander B.
(29/29)
Jul 18 2004
"Regan Heath"
- J Anderson (6/37) Jul 19 2004 I agree. It's almost the same thing with ti_. Categories also make
Can we not do this? :) (exception: std.c.*) Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg. Couldn't we give these modules more natural names? They're already sitting in the std package, so it's somewhat redundant. (std.integer, std.io, std.arglist?) -- andy
Jul 18 2004
In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...Can we not do this? :) (exception: std.c.*) Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg. Couldn't we give these modules more natural names? They're already sitting in the std package, so it's somewhat redundant. (std.integer, std.io, std.arglist?) -- andyMakes sense to me. There only problem is that it would break compatibility with all previous releases. Wouldn't be too hard to fix though. Maybe this will be a 2.0 thing?
Jul 18 2004
clayasaurus wrote:In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...I've been thinking the same thing. I absolutely agree. This isn't C. This is D. C can keep all of its historial quirks. D should be the new coolness.Can we not do this? :)I'd be easier to fix NOW (pre 1.0) than push it off to later when there's EVEN MORE code out there. I'd guess that 2.0 would be more geared towards adding cool new features than renaming old modules. When you're compiling and the compiler doesn't find "std.stdint", it shouldn't take too long to figure out it's now called "std.integer". Let's nip this in the bud! -- Justin (a/k/a jcc7) http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/(exception: std.c.*) Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg. Couldn't we give these modules more natural names? They're already sitting in the std package, so it's somewhat redundant. (std.integer, std.io, std.arglist?) -- andyMakes sense to me. There only problem is that it would break compatibility with all previous releases. Wouldn't be too hard to fix though. Maybe this will be a 2.0 thing?
Jul 18 2004
"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> escribió en el mensaje news:cdeice$2irc$1 digitaldaemon.com | clayasaurus wrote: || In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says... || ||| Can we not do this? :) | | I've been thinking the same thing. | | I absolutely agree. This isn't C. This is D. C can keep all of its | historial quirks. D should be the new coolness. | ||| ||| (exception: std.c.*) ||| ||| Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg. Couldn't we give ||| these modules more natural names? They're already sitting in the std ||| package, so it's somewhat redundant. (std.integer, std.io, std.arglist?) ||| ||| -- andy || || || Makes sense to me. There only problem is that it would break compatibility with || all previous releases. Wouldn't be too hard to fix though. Maybe this will be a || 2.0 thing? | | I'd be easier to fix NOW (pre 1.0) than push it off to later when | there's EVEN MORE code out there. I'd guess that 2.0 would be more | geared towards adding cool new features than renaming old modules. | | When you're compiling and the compiler doesn't find "std.stdint", it | shouldn't take too long to figure out it's now called "std.integer". | Let's nip this in the bud! | | -- | Justin (a/k/a jcc7) | http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/ Agreed. ----------------------- Carlos Santander Bernal
Jul 18 2004
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:03:49 -0500, Carlos Santander B. <carlos8294 msn.com> wrote:"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> escribió en el mensaje news:cdeice$2irc$1 digitaldaemon.com | clayasaurus wrote: || In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says... || ||| Can we not do this? :) | | I've been thinking the same thing. | | I absolutely agree. This isn't C. This is D. C can keep all of its | historial quirks. D should be the new coolness. | ||| ||| (exception: std.c.*) ||| ||| Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg. Couldn't we give ||| these modules more natural names? They're already sitting in the std ||| package, so it's somewhat redundant. (std.integer, std.io, std.arglist?) ||| ||| -- andy || || || Makes sense to me. There only problem is that it would break compatibility with || all previous releases. Wouldn't be too hard to fix though. Maybe this will be a || 2.0 thing? | | I'd be easier to fix NOW (pre 1.0) than push it off to later when | there's EVEN MORE code out there. I'd guess that 2.0 would be more | geared towards adding cool new features than renaming old modules. | | When you're compiling and the compiler doesn't find "std.stdint", it | shouldn't take too long to figure out it's now called "std.integer". | Let's nip this in the bud! | | -- | Justin (a/k/a jcc7) | http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/ Agreed.I thought std.c.stdio was named as such because it is a wrapper for c stdio module and there are plans to phase it out entirely, i.e. once we have replaced the functionality it provides with D style code. If this is the case, then instead of renaming them, we should simply create the new modules i.e. std.io in which we import the existing c wrapper i.e. std.c.stdio until the functionality is phased out/replaced. This way existing code that relies on std.c.stdio functions can still import it, but new code can use std.io (provided it provides all the functionality required) Regan -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Jul 18 2004
"Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294 msn.com> "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> escribió en el mensaje news:opsbcy2kwe5a2sq9 digitalmars.com |||| In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says... ||||| (exception: std.c.*) | | I thought std.c.stdio was named as such because it is a wrapper for c | stdio module and there are plans to phase it out entirely, i.e. once we | have replaced the functionality it provides with D style code. | | If this is the case, then instead of renaming them, we should simply | create the new modules i.e. std.io in which we import the existing c | wrapper i.e. std.c.stdio until the functionality is phased out/replaced. | | This way existing code that relies on std.c.stdio functions can still | import it, but new code can use std.io (provided it provides all the | functionality required) | | Regan | | -- | Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ That's what Andy meant: std.c.* would remain the same, but: std.stdint => std.integer std.stdio => std.io std.stdargs => std.arglist Or any other suitable names, since they're not C wrappers anymore but D modules. ----------------------- Carlos Santander Bernal
Jul 18 2004
J C Calvarese wrote:clayasaurus wrote:I agree. It's almost the same thing with ti_. Categories also make things easier for intellisense (although some programs like visual assist can work without the pressing the dot character).In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...I've been thinking the same thing. I absolutely agree. This isn't C. This is D. C can keep all of its historial quirks. D should be the new coolness.Can we not do this? :)-- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/I'd be easier to fix NOW (pre 1.0) than push it off to later when there's EVEN MORE code out there. I'd guess that 2.0 would be more geared towards adding cool new features than renaming old modules. When you're compiling and the compiler doesn't find "std.stdint", it shouldn't take too long to figure out it's now called "std.integer". Let's nip this in the bud!(exception: std.c.*) Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg. Couldn't we give these modules more natural names? They're already sitting in the std package, so it's somewhat redundant. (std.integer, std.io, std.arglist?) -- andyMakes sense to me. There only problem is that it would break compatibility with all previous releases. Wouldn't be too hard to fix though. Maybe this will be a 2.0 thing?
Jul 19 2004