questions on PhanTango 'merger' (was Merging Tangobos into Tango)

[Don Clugston]

BCS wrote:
> Reply to kris,
> 
>> What it is that people *really* want out of the compatibility effort?
> 
> I like the idea of having piles of cool functionality in Tango, but 
> sometime I just want a free function that have a four line description 
> than I can understand without having to think about it. What I would 
> love to see is to have a tango.lite that have most of the more common 
> (non-broken) parts of phobos in it.

Seems to me, that there are actually TWO phobos-es (phobi ?).
There's "core phobos", (std.file, etc) which has the basic i/o.
There's also "complete phobos" which includes some disorganised stuff which has 
far more limited appeal (std.openrj, std.base64, std.uri, etc).
Seems to me that when people talk about phobos-vs-tango, it's core phobos which 
has the biggest appeal, and the extended phobos which is most disliked.
Could phobos be trimmed down to this core set?
(Make the extended phobos be available as a separate download, or at least 
clearly distinguished?)