www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Re: Phobos/Tango Unification Plans

reply Paul D. Anderson <paul.d.removethis.anderson comcast.andthis.net> writes:
Benji Smith Wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 Benji Smith wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 Yep, probably best just to be content with the druntime for now... 
 that's a big move in itself ... and a great one.  If we demand too 
 much of these guys, they are gonna balk. :-D




If these changes (and others discussed here lately) are going to break a lot of code, is it time to move to 3.0?
 Oh, don't get me wrong. I think it's a fantastic first step. I was 
 just wondering whether there's a "step two" on the drawing board yet.

Step one is gonna be a doozy!

And I'm sure I speak for us all when I say we *REALLY* appreciate it. Being able to use both libraries will be a huge win. --benji

Oct 13 2008
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Paul D. Anderson wrote:
 Benji Smith Wrote:
 
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Benji Smith wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 Yep, probably best just to be content with the druntime for now... 
 that's a big move in itself ... and a great one.  If we demand too 
 much of these guys, they are gonna balk. :-D




If these changes (and others discussed here lately) are going to break a lot of code, is it time to move to 3.0?

Until D 2.0 is finalized I think it's allowable for code to break between compiler releases. Sean
Oct 13 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Benji Smith <dlanguage benjismith.net> writes:
Paul D. Anderson wrote:
 Benji Smith Wrote:
 
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Benji Smith wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 Yep, probably best just to be content with the druntime for now... 
 that's a big move in itself ... and a great one.  If we demand too 
 much of these guys, they are gonna balk. :-D




If these changes (and others discussed here lately) are going to break a lot of code, is it time to move to 3.0?

Noooooooooooooooo!!!!
Oct 13 2008
prev sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Paul,

 Benji Smith Wrote:
 
 Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Benji Smith wrote:
 
 John Reimer wrote:
 
 Yep, probably best just to be content with the druntime for now...
 that's a big move in itself ... and a great one.  If we demand too
 much of these guys, they are gonna balk. :-D
 




a lot of code, is it time to move to 3.0?

I think that just "ups" the complexity. You may have just made a whole bunch of people faint with that suggestion. :-D But I'm assuming you are suggesting that "3.0" respresent the merge of Phobos and Tango? If that's the case, I don't think there need be an incremental version value to represent the change. -JJR
Oct 13 2008