On 11/16/10 10:46 AM, Steve Teale wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:16:13 -0500, Steve Teale
<steve.te...@britseyeview.com> wrote:
Andrei,
Maybe it is time that the structure of the standard library became more
generalized. At the moment we have std... and core...
Perhaps we need another branch in the hierarchy, like ranges... Then
there could be a std.range module that was the gateway into ranges...
The library could then expand in an orderly fashion, with a wider range
of users becoming responsible for the maintenance of of different
branches against changes in the language, not against changes in fashion.
Then you could have ranges.regex, that suits you, and the people who
were happy with the status quo, could continue to use std.regexp, which
should continue to behave like it did in DMD2.029 or whatever it was
when I wrote my 'legacy' code.
The current system, where modules of the library can get arbitrarily
deprecated and at some point removed because they are unfashionable, is
very unfriendly.
I recognize that you are young, hyper-intelligent, and motivated toward
fame. But there are other users, like me, who are older, but not senile,
and have more conservative attitudes, including the desire to use code
they wrote in the past at some point in the future.
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.
Can you just copy std.regex from 2.029 and compile it in your project?
I.e. instead of phobos adding range branch for the new range style, you
add branch Teale for your style and copy what you like in there. Then you
have what you want (may take a little effort on your part, but then you
control the results).
Also, 2.029 is still available via download, you can still use it.
-Steve
Yes Steve, of course I can, but other much more popular languages like for
instance PHP seem to do OK with the suit-everyone style.
I am just upset that code I put a lot of effort into gets broken because
somebody else does not like the style of the library.
Which should be preserved - style, or substance?
Steve
It's probably common courtesy that should be preserved. I just committed
the fix prompted by Lutger (thanks).
Andrei
