std.xml should just go

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 03.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Tomek Sowiński:
> Jonathan M Davis napisał:
> 
>> I think that at least a couple of people have said that they have the beginnings 
>> of a replacement, but I don't believe that anyone has stepped up to say that 
>> they'll actually complete and propose a module for inclusion in Phobos.
> 
> Wimps ;-)
> 
>> So, std.xml is still very much up in the air, and Tango has set a very high bar 
>> with regards to speed. And while we may not be able to match Tango for speed - 
>> especially at first - we'd definitely like to have an xml solution that's close. 
>> And that's not necessarily going to be easy - especially since we're inevitably 
>> going to want a range-based solution. And while ranges can be quite efficient, it 
>> can also be easy to make them inefficient if you're not careful.
> 
> Speaking of Tango, may I look at it? I remember that beef over the first datetime and it gives me shivers...
> 

You probably shouldn't look at the source.
I dunno about the interface (documentation) - it's certainly not illegal to take
inspiration from it, but maybe then people will again claim that source was
stolen.. but when you claim that you haven't looked at the source it may be ok..

Maybe a clean-room approach is possible: Somebody else looks at the source and
documents what it does and how it does that (without copying anything) and you
could use that documentation for your own code.
If you don't want to clone it but have questions about how they did something
specific you could just ask here and (hopefully) someone looks it up and
explains it to you.

Cheers,
- Daniel