Lionello Lunesu wrote: > > "Yigal Chripun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> You've posted in the NG your intention to re-implement several key >> modules in phobos including IO and algorithm, I'm hoping that instead of >> two separate IO systems (tango and phobos) you could use the Tango IO >> and implement your Range proposal on top of it. Others already suggested >> that on this NG. > > There are good reasons for keeping the IO separate. Phobos is based on > the C runtime, meaning you can interleave D IO with C IO and everything > will behave nicely. Tango's IO layer is written from scratch, using OS > calls. You shouldn't mix Tango IO with IO in a linked-in C library. > > L.
IMHO, Tango's IO is a better default for D exactly because it's written from scratch specifically for D. the benefits are better performance and no dependence on the C stdlib. interleaving D IO with C IO is also possible with tango, with the relevant stdc modules, but that should IMHO be an opt-in feature.
