std.xml should just go

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> 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..

It has been posited by Tango's developers that simply looking at the  
documentation of a D library isn't enough to understand the library, you  
probably have looked at the source.  Until they change that opinion, I  
would avoid even the documentation.

http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/2010-April/000370.html

The pertinent quote from there:

"In my opinion, claiming a clean room implementation of an API in D is  
difficult, if for no other reason that it is (due to imperfect doc  
generation etc) somewhat difficult to properly study a D API without at  
the same time reading the source (or glimpsing at it)."

> 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.

Make sure if you follow this approach that you document exactly the  
process and how it was done.

-Steve