Two standard libraries?

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

Ender KaShae wrote:
> Steve Teale Wrote:
> 
>> It seemes to me that given Walter's definition of the language - a system programming language - that Phobos is closer to the mark.  If users want a more object oriented standard library, that's all well and good, but it should be a shoe-in, then if you want to use the OO stuff you can, but code that's been written to work with Phobos should work unmodified with other libraries.  (Note the recent discussion on C++ security). Any other approach seems to me to reek of vanity.
>>
> 
> it would be so much better if one could use both tango and phobos, for some things procedural programing makes more sense, sometimes OO programing makes more sense, and theres nothing to keep these too situations isolated from each other, since a program only imports the modules it needs I don't see why both phobos and tango can be used simultanously.

Consider Tangobos. :)
http://dsource.org/projects/tangobos

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls