On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Sean Kelly <s...@invisibleduck.org> wrote: > == Quote from Bill Baxter (wbax...@gmail.com)'s article >> On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:54 AM, grauzone <n...@example.net> wrote: >> >> Hmmmmm. Name for a common namespace...... How about.... "common". >> > >> > Every time you introduce a new standard namespace, a bunch of innocent >> > existing D programs might become invalid. >> > >> I do in fact have a top level package called "common" where I put a >> bunch of code that is common to my various projects. But I would >> happily rename it in a heartbeat if it meant greater unification >> between Phobos and Tango. 'Tis a small price to pay. > > druntime already has "core", is there truly a need for a second top-level > namespace?
The math library almost unarguably belongs in core, since it's just giving you access to more capabilities of the processor, more or less. I'm just worried about the extent to which this might end up going. stdc is already kind of pushing it; it's not really central to the language or to runtime operation. I'd rather not see more stuff shoved into core that isn't core.
