"Phango" container classes

[Bill Baxter]

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Janice Caron wrote:
> 
>> On 10/2/07, Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar at igesund.net> wrote:
>>>> On the other hand, I'd have no problems with just importing a module
>>>> to get me lots of cool new classes.
>>> This is the other reason for people switching.
>> Ah, but the whole point of this thread is that I don't /need/ to
>> switch, because now we know that with about an hour's effort we can
>> make those classes work with Phobos. That's what "Phango" (or
>> "Phandango") means. I don't /want/ to have to rip out the innards of D
>> just to make a string class work.
> 
> And my original post could be translated into the following question; If the
> runtimes are compatible, why spend time on porting the utility classes when
> it would be much faster to install a different runtime (it is a question of
> replacing one file) that usually is considered to be better?

If they *were* compatible then there would be less of a point.  But no 
one really knows when or if this compatibility is going to happen.

--bb