== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisp...@gmx.com)'s article > On Thursday, February 03, 2011 15:51:10 %u wrote: > > == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article > > > > > I hate to fuel this any further, but I want to re-iterate what I have > > > learned. Please re-read my summary (titled "SHOO's Time code -- > > > conclusion") in the announce group. > > > I personally went through great lengths to satisfy 1. It was 2 that was > > > the problem. > > > Seeing that the same author who did not give approval to relicense the > > > time code is an author of Tango's XML code, I doubt his views have > > > changed. -Steve > > > > With only two(or one even) off these three helping out: larsivi, kris and > > stonecobra, you can get quite a bit of (older) code readable. > Which brings us back to Andrei's point. There are plenty of other good XML > libraries out there. We have no need to base Phobos code off of Tango. Let's > just > drop it and move on. > I only brought up Tango in the first place to point out that it is a goal of > the > new std.xml to at least come close to Tango's performance in parsing XML, > because Tango's XML parser is very fast. It's a point which has been brought > up > before and I believe that it still holds. However, that doesn't mean that we > need to deal with the Tango API or source code, and we definitely don't want > any > more debates about "us vs them" or any such nonsense. > Let's just move on. > - Jonathan M Davis
I couldn't care less about any such debates and will not take part any of it. As Steven Schveighoffer already contacted some of the Tango developers I thought he might also have received a "sure" from one of them.. would be a waste to not at least take a look at that devs code, if he exists. But now that I reread Stevens post, he might have gotten only "no"s. ;)