On 31/05/2015 3:03 p.m., Danni Coy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
so is std.xml the exception? How many other parts of the standard
library are like that?
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On 31/05/2015 2:27 p.m., H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 02:17:59PM +1200, Rikki Cattermole via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 31/05/2015 11:37 a.m., Danni Coy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
The Standard Library. I want to use D so I can do more with less
hours writing code and less hours debugging code. Having a high
quality standard library really helps this - unfortunately for me the
first thing I needed from the standard library was xml parsing, which
the documentation tells me is sub par and will be replaced in the
near future, There is no indication of what I might like to use
instead. Do I now use one of the other xml libraries floating around,
bind a C based one or roll my own. All this eats into the efficiency
that I am gaining by virtue of D being a really nice language.
Ahh std.xml, it's been that way for years.
We NEED to get that replaced. Although don't hold your breath :/
What we *really* need, like almost everything else in D, is for somebody
to get sufficiently provoked by the sorry state of the current std.xml
to write something better and push it through the review process. Until
then, further discussion is unlikely to make any difference.
T
That's a given at this stage.
I've read the XML spec, its almost as bad as x86. Okay not quite but still.
That's how far I got.
std.json I believe and maybe one or two others. But std.xml is the one
without a real clear alternative in the D ecosystem.
