• David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> Jun 11 2011
• Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> Jun 11 2011
• Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> Jun 11 2011
• KennyTM~ <kennytm gmail.com> Jun 12 2011
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Jun 12 2011
• David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> Jun 12 2011
• Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> Jun 12 2011

David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> writes:

core.stdc is the place for C standard library modules, core.sys.* are 
where the C operating system header translations reside – this is our 
current policy, right? If so (I can't actually remember any formal 
decision or discussion), is there a reason we still have so much code in 
std.c?

David

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On 2011-06-11 23:38, David Nadlinger wrote:
 core.stdc is the place for C standard library modules, core.sys.* are
 where the C operating system header translations reside =E2=80=93 this is=


 current policy, right? If so (I can't actually remember any formal
 decision or discussion), is there a reason we still have so much code in
 std.c?


IIRC, all of the standard C bindings are supposed to be in core. std.c is=20
where they used to be, and I believe that the majority of std.c merely=20
publically imports the corresponding modules in core. The modules in std.c=
=20
should probably be put on the path to deprecation now. I believe that they=
=20
have only been left around for backwards compatability.

=2D Jonathan M Davis

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Am 12.06.2011 08:38, schrieb David Nadlinger:
 core.stdc is the place for C standard library modules, core.sys.* are
 where the C operating system header translations reside – this is our
 current policy, right? If so (I can't actually remember any formal
 decision or discussion), is there a reason we still have so much code in
 std.c?
 
 David


And why is core.stdc not listed on
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/phobos.html and
http://d-programming-language.org/phobos/index.html ?

Furthermore it'd be nice if the functions contained there were
documented or at least listed.

Cheers,
- Daniel

KennyTM~ <kennytm gmail.com> writes:

On Jun 12, 11 14:44, Daniel Gibson wrote:
 Am 12.06.2011 08:38, schrieb David Nadlinger:
 core.stdc is the place for C standard library modules, core.sys.* are
 where the C operating system header translations reside – this is our
 current policy, right? If so (I can't actually remember any formal
 decision or discussion), is there a reason we still have so much code in
 std.c?

 David


 And why is core.stdc not listed on
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/phobos.html and
 http://d-programming-language.org/phobos/index.html ?

 Furthermore it'd be nice if the functions contained there were
 documented or at least listed.

 Cheers,
 - Daniel


http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5872

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 6/12/11 1:38 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
 core.stdc is the place for C standard library modules, core.sys.* are
 where the C operating system header translations reside – this is our
 current policy, right? If so (I can't actually remember any formal
 decision or discussion), is there a reason we still have so much code in
 std.c?

 David


The reason is a smart GSoC student didn't yet come and deprecate them :o).

Andrei

David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> writes:

On 6/12/11 5:06 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 6/12/11 1:38 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
 core.stdc is the place for C standard library modules, core.sys.* are
 where the C operating system header translations reside – this is our
 current policy, right? If so (I can't actually remember any formal
 decision or discussion), is there a reason we still have so much code in
 std.c?

 David


 The reason is a smart GSoC student didn't yet come and deprecate them :o).


Smart? Can't possibly be me… ;)

On a closer look, I discovered that contrary to core.sys.posix and 
core.sys.osx, which only have C header translations, core.sys.windows.* 
also contains support code like backtrace.d, thradaux.d, etc.

Is the »official« package structure actually documented anywhere?

David

Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:

The windows bit was more an issue of that we needed the code somewhere and i=
t was windows-specific, so sys.windows seemed a passable choice. The alterna=
tive would be core.internal, though I'm trying to avoid the need for that ap=
proach. If you have suggestions for how to handle this, please let me know :=
-)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 12, 2011, at 8:37 AM, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> wrote:

 On 6/12/11 5:06 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 6/12/11 1:38 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
 core.stdc is the place for C standard library modules, core.sys.* are
 where the C operating system header translations reside =E2=80=93 this i=






 current policy, right? If so (I can't actually remember any formal
 decision or discussion), is there a reason we still have so much code in=






 std.c?
=20
 David


 The reason is a smart GSoC student didn't yet come and deprecate them :o)=




=20
 Smart? Can't possibly be me=E2=80=A6 ;)
=20
 On a closer look, I discovered that contrary to core.sys.posix and core.sy=


ns support code like backtrace.d, thradaux.d, etc.
=20
 Is the =C2=BBofficial=C2=AB package structure actually documented anywhere=


=20
 David