"Phango" container classes

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Bill Baxter wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> Janice Caron wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10/2/07, Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar at igesund.net> wrote:
>>>>> On the other hand, I'd have no problems with just importing a module
>>>>> to get me lots of cool new classes.
>>>> This is the other reason for people switching.
>>> Ah, but the whole point of this thread is that I don't /need/ to
>>> switch, because now we know that with about an hour's effort we can
>>> make those classes work with Phobos. That's what "Phango" (or
>>> "Phandango") means. I don't /want/ to have to rip out the innards of D
>>> just to make a string class work.
>> 
>> And my original post could be translated into the following question; If
>> the runtimes are compatible, why spend time on porting the utility
>> classes when it would be much faster to install a different runtime (it
>> is a question of replacing one file) that usually is considered to be
>> better?
> 
> If they *were* compatible then there would be less of a point.  But no
> one really knows when or if this compatibility is going to happen.
> 
> --bb

It is not a "it it will happen", just a question of when as there are
bandwidth restrictions :) We want to resolve this ASAP.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango