On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:30:03 Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > The standard library should not have something to please everyone. If > there is 5 different styles to do the same thing, it will be a failure.
Agreed. Ideally, the standard library would be very uniform in approach. That makes it easier to learn and use. If it's schizophrenic about it's approach - especially if it has multiple ways of doing everything - then it's going to be much harder to learn and use. Everyone would be asking why you'd choose one way over another and what the differences between them are. It would just cause confusion. Ranges are a key element of how Phobos does things in D2. The truth of the matter is that if you want to effectively use Phobos, you're going to have to use ranges. If ranges aren't appropriate for a particular module or problem, then they shouldn't be used, but Phobos is generally being built around using them, and the more of Phobos which functions in essentially the same way, the easier it will be to understand, learn, and use. The old code is indeed available for modules which are going to be deprecated/removed, and the license is usually Boost, so you're pretty free to do what you want with it if you prefer it. And there's nothing wrong with creating your own libraries if you'd prefer. Plenty of folks have done that in the past. The standard library needs to be fairly uniform in approach, however, and some of the current modules are older and don't follow that approach or have licensing or design issues which were not addressed in the past. Once all of those modules have been updated, replaced, or removed, Phobos will be more uniform and its parts will interact better. And over time, it's unlikely that modules will continue to be deprecated like that. It's happening now because D2 Phobos is still fairly early in its evolution. - Jonathan M Davis
