On 2011-09-06 16:51, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/6/11 2:35 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/5/2011 11:39 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
We don't want to have a standard library like the one in PHP where
there seems
to be no naming conventions at all.
I don't think that is the reason PHP is such a bear to work with.
Probably. At any rate, what I now think as a promising path is with new
module names. Let's leave the likes of std.xml and std.json in peace,
then pick a naming convention for the new ones and create whole new
modules replacing them. Then people who are ready for the migration change
import std.xml;
with
import std.some_naming_convention_involving_xml;
and fix whatever code breakages that entails. If they're pleased with
std.xml, nobody's holding a gun to their head.
Months and years go by, and nobody uses std.xml because the new module
and the migration path are copiously advertised in the documentation. At
that point we can discuss excising std.xml altogether and replacing it
with the new one. And so the new becomes old, just like in dialectics.
There's a successful precedent in C++ - stringstream vs. strstream. The
only missing thing is that C++ did not choose a naming convention
because they limited themselves to only one header.
So what should we use? xml2? new_xml? FWIW we use the prefix "new_" at
Facebook to good effect. Or should we, au contraire, use "old_" for the
old module and advise people who want to stick with the old modules to
change their imports?
Andrei
I prefer to use "old_". Depending on what XML functionality we want we
maybe want to have an xml package.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
