Walter Bright Wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> > Agreed. So what's wrong with improving things and leaving old things as
> > aliases?
>
> Clutter.
>
> One of the risks with Phobos development is it becoming a river miles wide,
> and
> only an inch deep. In other words, endless gobs of shallow, trite functions,
> with very little depth. (Aliases are as shallow as they get!)
>
> As a general rule, I don't want functionality in Phobos that takes more time
> for
> a user to find/read/understand the documentation on than to reimplement it
> himself. Those things give the illusion of comprehensiveness, but are just
> useless wankery.
>
> Do we really want a 1000 page reference manual on Phobos, but no database
> interface? No network interface? No D lexer? No disassembler? No superfast
> XML
> parser? No best-of-breed regex implementation? No CGI support? No HTML
> parsing?
> No sound support? No jpg reading?
>
> I worry by endless bikeshedding about perfecting the spelling of some name,
> we
> miss the whole show.
>
> I'd like to see more meat. For example, Don has recently added gamma
> functions
> to the math library. These are hard to implement correctly, and are perfect
> for
> inclusion.
Trivial solution:
have a separate set of modules that contain the backward compatible aliases.
Have those modules documented *separately* in an appendix.
No Clutter and no problems.
Want to use familiar functions from e.g. C++? just use:
iimport compatibility.cpp.string;
instead of:
import string;
Providing such packages would help programmers to transition from other
languages to D and perhaps they should be optional addons to phoboes which are
maintained separately.
