You still haven’t explained how you would address conflicts in that scheme, were multiple people want to reserve different pieces of a namespace. I think this would be a fundamental requirement to go any further with this.
rename-dependency is fine for backward compatibility, where people want to provide a crate as a drop-in replacement. But going forward, I don’t want to live in an ecosystem where
rename-dependency changes from being an exceptional measure to solve a specific issue to something that everyone starts using to get rid of meaningless parts of crate names. I don’t want to imagine the inconsistencies when everyone renames stuff, but picks different names.
This would not work under the proposal. You would need to go through every source file and replace
new-maintained-package. (I already explained above why
rename-dependency is only a band-aid.)
It might be better than we had before, but is fairs very poorly when comparing against better approaches that have been used successfully over the last decade.
Eh, I’m a bit baffled by this dismissive sarcasm. I provided the necessary facts. If you disagree with them, show your facts against them.
I provided an itemized list above.
Eh what? I provided the example of an actually existing ecosystem which employs a better approach for the last decade. It is clearly better, because the hyphen proposal lacks any answer to the deficiencies that have been pointed out, compared to established and proven designs.
Now I’m a bit confused. Did you perhaps mix up your responses and this was meant as a reply to someone else?
Just to get in sync again:
- I have argued for namespaces for a long time.
- I have suggested an established approach that has a track record of working, and until now nobody has come up with any argument against it, or pointed out any deficiency that prevent its use in Rust.
- I have pointed out problems with other proposals.
I agree with this, and this is exactly what I have done.