Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Benji Smith]

IUnknown wrote:
> Agree. Which is why I said the problems you are facing seem to be non-technical. I'm suggesting that the D library developers should pick one and axe the other. *I* think what more important is to have one single set of containers in a single style rather than have two separate ones. There is going to be complaining for sure from the current developers, but in my opinion, the target of having a single standard library (with core and advanced modules to suit system/ app programming) is more important than having to make a difficult choice. 

Totally agree. While I personally prefer the Java-style containers, I'd 
gladly accept the STL-style containers if it meant unification of Phobos 
and Tango.

Having druntime is nice, sure, but application-level code and high-level 
libraries will bake the container API into their public interfaces, and 
any code that uses both the Phobos and Tango libraries would have to 
perform a zillion tedious conversions.

In my mind, the things that need a unified API are (in order of importance):

1. GC and TypeInfo
2. Data structures
3. Algorithms
4. String processing
5. Date & Time
6. IO

Everything else (encryption, compression, sockets, regular expressions, 
could have a totally different API in Tango & Phobos and I wouldn't care 
much.

Having a common runtime (GC and TypeInfo) is a neat trick, but pretty 
useless if the data structures and algorithms are entirely different.

And, while I'm perfectly willing to accept either Java-style or 
STL-style containers, I'd also really appreciate it if the design 
anticipates and supports custom implementations (because I almost always 
end up implementing my own multimaps, multisets, circular queues etc)

--benji