What's missing from Phobos for Orbit (package manager)

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-02-14 23:37, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> No.  Clearly using tango xml will not fly.
>
> We need a new xml library.  For many reasons, besides this tool.
>
> I also think serialization is something we should have in phobos,
> regardless of Orbit's requirements.

I've tried that, nobody was interested.

> std.process should be remedied soon (it's nearing review).
>
> The others, I'm not sure.
>
> What about this as a possible ongoing solution:
>
> Step 1. Include orbit in BINARY form on the distribution, keep it in its
> own project wherever it lives now.  Dogfood be damned...

It's _is_ written in D. I just chose to use libraries that exists and 
works. BTW, probably around half of what's included in the DMD 
distribution is not written in D at all.

> Step 2. Port as much as possible to Phobos.  As libraries become
> available, try to port it over to the new library.
> Utopian step. Include Orbit and source in distribution, without external
> dependencies.

That could work.

> I don't see why dmd distribution needs to include the source for all the
> tools it uses.  I frequently never touch the source of dmd distribution,
> I just use the compiled binaries.

Me too.

> This might be kind of viewed like DMD.  It has parts in it that are ASM,
> that Walter is slowly porting to C++.  Why can't we use that same model?
>
> -Steve


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg