Polishing D - suggestions and comments

[Jarrod]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:33:23 -0800, Kris wrote:

> "Dan" <murpsoft at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fngu5g$2oi3$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Kris Wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Jarrod" <qwerty at ytre.wq> wrote in message
>>> news:fnfa1t$1o1g$2 at digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> > What bugs me overall is not the rift between features on either
>>> > side, but
>>> > rather the incompatibility issues. Unless there is a merge, there
>>> > will be
>>> > two standards..
>>>
>>> Jarrod:
>>>
>>> In what manner does Tangobos not provide the "merge" you describe?  It
>>> permits you to import, compile and link both phobos and Tango modules
>>> without fuss (which is what people had asked for). If you have a
>>> different
>>> idea of what that "merge" should instead be, would you please clarify?
>>
>> The thing they're asking for is a single semantically coherent library.

^That. 

> Many would say that is exactly the role of Tango ;)

Then why is it not the standard library?


>> Essentially, take tangobos, make it "the" library, and then mix and
>> match redundant parts to get the best of each.
> 
> That's a nice proposition, though probably very hard to satisfy more
> than one person in reality?

And the current API does?


As for the rest of your reply, I'm not really trying to debate core 
differences or implementation details and philosophies. I'm trying to 
find any possible compromise but from what I've seen you seem to be very 
strongly against any form of it.


Oh, and I read your other reply regarding the creation of Tango, too. 
(Damn these branching threads.)
If Tango was made because Phobos was in tatters in the past, then what is 
the motivation now? Phobos is once again moving along nicely. Why can't 
the Tango team help it advance?