On Friday, 23 May 2014 at 14:43:20 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote:
On Friday, 23 May 2014 at 06:24:28 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 22/05/14 21:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not
holding
anything up am I? Sonke: If there's anything you need
done/dealt-with
regarding SDLang-D, let me know.
Do we want/need the SDL parser/writer to be included into
Phobos first?
This is my concern. Waiting for another module to get into
phobos before DUB gets included is too much. Couldn't SDL be
added later as an option? (For small files like this I find
this to be a bikeshed issue. DUB files are very readable as is
and I don't like the idea of waiting 6 more months (as is
typical in D))
I don't see it as a problem. dub and dub-registry will stay
separate repositories and won't be included in phobos or tools
repo so we can just let it go. I know that in general it is good
policy to keep official stuff phobos-only but here it is simply
unfeasible.
dub-registry itself depends on vibe.d anyway and it is not like
we are going to include _that_ into phobos :)
