"Phango" container classes

[Bill Baxter]

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
> It is not a "it it will happen", just a question of when as there are
> bandwidth restrictions :) We want to resolve this ASAP.

Yeh, that's fine.  I understand that.  But I'm writing code that needs 
container classes *today*.  So I just thought I'd give porting to phobos 
a try.  And hey! It wasn't that hard and now I have some container 
classes I can use until the schism is mended.   That's all I'm saying.

--bb