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 <[email protected]> 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.
