Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Christopher Wright wrote:
> 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.

I agree, but I don't quite see a solution to this.

> 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.

Couldn't this cause trouble for code that is ported from one library to 
another? It may compile and then do unexpected things.


Andrei