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
