Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> dsimcha wrote:
> > One point of clarification:  opApply isn't going to be deprecated anytime soon, is
> > it?  It seems like ranges still have a bunch of rough edges, and although I like
> > the idea in principle, I'm only willing to convert to ranges if I can define
> > iterable objects with the same level of syntactic sugar as opApply gives me.  For
> > simple cases this is already true and I have begun converting some stuff.
> > However, for more complicated cases, opApply is still a lot more flexible.
> opApply isn't going away. For one thing, it works very well with
> recursive data structures.

So besides performance, what advantages does using ranges instead of opApply for
iteration over structs/classes offer?  According to some testing that I just
finished on the hash table implementation I was talking about earlier today, the
penalty for using opApply is small enough that, if using ranges requires a bunch
of extra bookkeeping overhead that opApply doesn't, then opApply can reasonably be
faster.