I was browsing the std
docs and noticed that std::dynamic_lib
was among the few std modules that were not yet marked stable
. Is it going to stay this way for a while? And what prevents it from being stabilized?
There is also a naming problem, which has been brought up by @mzabaluev in this thread.
dynamic_lib
seems a slightly arbitrary abbreviation of dynamic_library
, especially when the type inside the module is called DynamicLibrary
, while dylib
is what Rust and Cargo also uses.
Now that RFC 909 is accepted, dynamic_lib
will be the only top level std
module to have an underscore in its name,
Such inconsistency is unnecessary.
Iād propose that we rename the module to std::dylib
and the type to Dylib
.
A good idea or not?