Vote: deprecate std.xml?

Petar Petar
Sat Jan 11 09:12:38 UTC 2020

On Friday, 10 January 2020 at 17:43:06 UTC, JN wrote:
> On Friday, 10 January 2020 at 14:59:23 UTC, berni44 wrote:
>> Please vote: should std.xml be deprecated and moved to undeaD?
>> See 
>> for some lately discussion about this.
> I enjoy using std.xml (I like the whole parse-with-callbacks 
> approach), but I don't care if it's a package or part of stdlib.

One advantage of being a dub package is that the version of 
undead (and std.xml specifically) that you would use in your 
project(s) would be independent of the version of dmd/phobos. 
This allows you to upgrade either one at your own pace.

Additionally, we test undead with dmd nightly [1] and also every 
PR to dmd/druntime/phobos/dub needs to pass the test suite of 
undead [2] (among all the other projects) so you have about the 
same extensive testing and backwards compatibility guarantees, as 
if modules are still part of phobos. Actually, you have even more 
stability, as technically you may need a bug fix from a new D 
release, but that release could also include breaking change in 
std.xml. If that bug fix is critical for you, you don't have a 
choice but to upgrade and endure the breaking change in std.xml. 
Whereas, if std.xml is in undead, you can stick to a particular 
version of std.xml for as long as you need, by using a fixed 
version of undead in your dub.json/dub.sdl.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list