Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Christopher Wright]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>> The danger, of course, is that Tango will not be taken seriously again 
>> for D 2.0.  If Tango manages to garner the lion-share of popularity as 
>> they did with D 1.0 (LDC compiler suite is one example of the 
>> significant sway Tango has had on D 1.0 ), then I think I'm going to 
>> just throw up my hands.  Yes, I think something has to be done: 
>> ignoring Tango is not going to be a healthy option for D.  Either that 
>> or Phobos2 will have to be so good that people will drop Tango faster 
>> than they would a red-hot frying pan.
> 
> Beware of the false choice. Ideally, Phobos2 will be so good, and Tango2 
> will be so good, that people will enjoy using either or both together.
> 
> Andrei

People will be forced to use both together, which will be annoying, 
since they overlap. A third party library depending on Phobos will use 
Phobos time types and functions; one using Tango will depend on Tango 
time stuff; client code will be forced to convert back and forth.

Or, for example, subtle differences in file path handling between Phobos 
and Tango (I recall some people on IRC having minor issues with Tango's 
path handling in obscure cases that were contrary to specifications but 
occasionally used).

That sort of annoyance will not be extremely common, but it'll happen. 
It's another source of friction. It's a bad thing.

It's okay if the means of working with data types are entirely different 
in Phobos and Tango. The types themselves should be the same.