On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 02:09:18 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Sunday, 25 January 2015 at 21:19:59 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:56:04 +0000, AndyC wrote:
Its handy, yes, until you hit one of its many limitations,
then what
will you do?
i didn't come into any limitations yet. my scripts and other
software was
able to process any zips i trhowed at 'em.
but if i'll really hit any of std.zip limitiation... well,
this is a
clear sign that i should think about using custom archive
format.
Which is less work:
1) include libzip in the install as a requirement, and write
a D
interface for it.
2) reimplement all of it in D?
3. don't use zip, as something is already gone wrong.
I don't honestly know.
More C libraries means D is more useful faster and with less
bugs. Seems like a win to me.
one can write libzip wrapper and publish it in dub. this way
Phobos will
don't get an additional dependence, but those who need better
zip support
can easily get it.
Is it worth creating a higher tier within code.dlang.org of
libraries considered to be of high quality that may have a
semi-official stamp? When you know your way around, you can
see what is actively maintained and take a peek at the source,
but it is one more friction for newcomers when it is not clear
which library to use when Phobos doesn't fully do what you want.
Just being able to sort by popularity would be a pretty big
improvement.
