std.xml should just go

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:30:17 Tomek Sowiński wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu napisał:
> > > I'm not against replacement, but I'd be concerned about removal before
> > > a replacement is available.
> > 
> > My problem is that the mere presence is reducing the likelihood of a
> > replacement coming about, in addition to the other liabilities.
> 
> Is anyone tasked with a replacement yet? I had to write an XML parser at
> some point. It's plenty of work bringing up to industrial quality, so I'd
> have to know that before I dive in.

I think that at least a couple of people have said that they have the beginnings 
of a replacement, but I don't believe that anyone has stepped up to say that 
they'll actually complete and propose a module for inclusion in Phobos.

So, std.xml is still very much up in the air, and Tango has set a very high bar 
with regards to speed. And while we may not be able to match Tango for speed - 
especially at first - we'd definitely like to have an xml solution that's close. 
And that's not necessarily going to be easy - especially since we're inevitably 
going to want a range-based solution. And while ranges can be quite efficient, it 
can also be easy to make them inefficient if you're not careful.

- Jonathan M Davis