Agree. Which is why I said the problems you are facing seem to be non-technical. I'm suggesting that the D library developers should pick one and axe the other. *I* think what more important is to have one single set of containers in a single style rather than have two separate ones. There is going to be complaining for sure from the current developers, but in my opinion, the target of having a single standard library (with core and advanced modules to suit system/ app programming) is more important than having to make a difficult choice.
In other languages/ developer communities, the developers would present the two alternatives with all the pros and cons on a web page (not email) and the powers that be should vote on it, make the decision and move on with it. You already have this "divide" in C++ on how lots of people won't contribute to a project unless it employs boost and on the other end you have people who have not even heard of it or thing its too heavy for the project. The problem is different here, but it might end up fragmenting the small community. D attempts to solve a lot of problems and I think it does it pretty well. There might be a chance some mistakes creep in -- the "wrong" style might be picked. It won't be a bigger problem than having two separate libraries IMHO. This is why I request you to consult other independent people and see what their take on it is. From a library developer's perspective you would invariably pit the decision against the difficulty in doing it. Hence my suggestion to find out what users would really need and then try to implement it. 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
