Re: [DotGNU]DotGNU-Libs Mailing List for Commits proposal

[minddog]

On Sunday 30 March 2003 12:39, Stephen Compall wrote:
> On Sunday 30 March 2003 01:19 pm, minddog wrote:
> > Following in pnet's footsteps we'd like a commits list for
> > dotgnu-libs because it is growing rapidly with the addition of a few
> > new namespaces being planned, ie: DotGNU.Collections , DotGNU.Rdf.
> > Does anyone agree?
>
> No, but not for the reason you'd think:
>
> If we're to insist that the MS extensions are deprecated (as at least
> *I* do), then it won't do to have them more accessible than the
> (superior) replacements in dotgnu-libs.  This is why I wanted to make
> ECMA-only libs the default.  But Rhys had another suggestion last
> meeting:
>
> [21:58] <S11001001> I just think it's a problem, that for example the
> presence of MS collections discourages development of non-MS
> collection alternatives
> [21:59] <rhysw> I wasn't aware that it was discouraging development -
> MS collections are pretty basic and stupid anyway
> [21:59] <chillywilly> it promotes borg-like bahavior ;)
> [22:00] nb (address@hidden) joined #dotgnu.
> [22:00] <rhysw> on the subject of non-MS libraries, perhaps we should
> roll dotgnu-libs back into pnetlib - it might get more exposure that
> way
>
> So how about this?

I wasn't aware of this as an option.  I totally agree to extending System, I 
always thought seperation discouraged non-.net and non-ecma specs from being 
brought up.  My opinion is that we should get on the ball with moving 
libraries.  On that note, we should talk about organization of our new set of 
extensions.

-- 
--minddog( Adam Ballai )

"I try to take it one day at a time, but several of them attack me at once."
-mistyflip