Tango vs Phobos

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Lars Ivar Igesund" wrote
> Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>>> There isn't really a subset of Tango that can run on top of any Phobos
>>> runtime. The Tango runtime probably works fine with D2 without any major
>>> changes, it is the user library that is problematic. The work on the
>>> porting has begun in a branch in Tango's svn repository, but cannot be
>>> continued properly until certain issues are fixed.
>>
>> I don't understand. I fixed the one issue you identified to me that was
>> impeding Tango on D2 (Bugzilla 1644, and 2204 is the same). What else is
>> there?
>
> I wasn't aware that 2204 was a duplicate of 1644, and I guess Steven 
> wasn't
> either. If there are no further stumbling blocks, all are great :)
> Although, clearly, the better solution would be fixing Bugzilla 1961, 1644
> is only a workaround for that.

In fact, I wasn't aware.  2204 was a legitimate bug, which worked in D 
2.007.  1644 was an enhancement request, I didn't really consider it a bug, 
but it did not work in 2.007.  So I viewed them as separate issues.

Of course, it's entirely possible that in adding the 1644 enhancement, the 
2204 bug also got fixed.  I'll check it (haven't had a chance yet to try out 
the new D2).

I also would have preferred 1961, but I understand the preference for 1644 
as 1961 would be a huge feature change.  I still think 1961 is a worthwhile 
enhancement, but I don't think it blocks D2/Tango development at this time. 
I will check the status of these bugs soon.

The benefits of 1961:
Not a template solution.
Ability to not munge the caller's const contract.

-Steve