• clayasaurus (35/35) Aug 22 2004 #1) With gdc on the horizon, woudln't it be more correct instead of just
• Stephen Waits (7/10) Aug 23 2004 Or how about adding "version(Posix)" since most of those OSes strive for...

clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:

version (linux), have version(unix) which would cover BSD & Mac.
or maybe have version(linux) version(MacOSX) version(BSD) etc...
Are the versionings going to be left up to the compiler writers, or will 
there be a standard set (spec? i guess) for versioning on other systems.

the D website says "Others will be added as they make sense and new 
implementations appear."

would it make more sense to define them now so that when MacOS does 
happen, compiler writers now what version(what) to use?

Now that I think about it, version (unix) would probably be too ambiguous.


I like the idea of all imports being private by default, and if you want
to make them public you use a public keyword like...

public import foo;

I think that having all imports public by default is messy and
leads to things like import conflicts (which are really hard to track 
down on large projects) and definitions which seem to come out of 
nowhere. For example, before I privatized my imports, I could usually 
write writefln("anything"); without ever importing std.stdio; in the 
current file. While it may be less typing, it ultimately leads to 
confusion of where the function came from (in large projects, like 
libraries, that users are not familiar with).

Yes, I know I can privatize my imports and I did, but I think it should 
be default behavior.



import std.stdio; and
import std.stdint;

why not just do

import std.io;
import std.int; ?

It is less typing and looks cleaner, a win win.

Ok, I know Walter has more important things to work on (bugs), but I 
thought I'd just resurface all this to make me feel better. *ahh* 
*peace-of-mind*

PS. <subliminal>add loader.d to libphobos.a</subliminal>

Stephen Waits <steve waits.net> writes:

clayasaurus wrote:

 version (linux), have version(unix) which would cover BSD & Mac.
 or maybe have version(linux) version(MacOSX) version(BSD) etc...

Or how about adding "version(Posix)" since most of those OSes strive for 
Posix compliance?

--Steve

BTW - you cannot (legally) call Linux (or any Linux-based distribution) 
"Unix".  It's not Unix.  Same goes for FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD.  Not 
that I care, but somewhere there is a lawyer who does care...