Vote: deprecate std.xml?

berni44 dlang at
Fri Jan 17 10:10:19 UTC 2020

On Saturday, 11 January 2020 at 21:10:06 UTC, Dennis wrote:
> Has anyone made a write-up detailing what is exactly wrong with 
> std.xml (and maybe certain other Phobos modules too)? I have 
> heard some general complaints about bad APIs and outdated 
> idioms but other than that I am out of the loop.

I would like to answer this question, but I can't. The reason is 
simple: I never used std.xml and just tried once to hunt down a 

So you may wonder, why I started this anyway. Well, I perceived, 
that the question of removing some modules from Phobos comes up 
over and over again. So it's certainly not a good idea to keep 
the current state and I'd like to push this change a little bit.

On Monday, 13 January 2020 at 11:09:15 UTC, rikki cattermole 

> dxml is the closest and the author isn't keen to go down that 
> right now.

Would be nice to know, why.

All in all, from the discussion up to now, there seem to be two 
feasable ways to proceed:

a) remove std.xml
b) replace std.xml by dxml

To decide between these two it would be good to have an answer to 
both questions (why is std.xml considered bad and what are the 
hindrances to move dxml into Phobos).

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list