On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 15:33:42 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > For a while we've espoused the strategy of keeping std.xml in Phobos > until something better comes along. > > But recently we've started to rethink that. > > Pretty much everyone who tries std.xml ends up disappointed. Anyone who > wants to bash D has std.xml as an easy pick. Anyone who looks at speed > comparisons sees std.xml there like a sore thumb. Finally, the mere > existence of a package, no matter how inadequate, stifles the initiative > of others working on it. > > This all makes std.xml a net liability. It's not better than nothing; > it's worse than nothing. > > Should we nuke it?
I'm fine with that, but then again, I've never used it. Still, I see some benefit in deprecating and/or removing modules that we know that we want to replace. At _minimum_, we should really start adding module comments to such modules that say that the module is going to be replaced at a later date, so you shouldn't expect it to be usable in your code in the long term unless you copy the source. - Jonathan M Davis
