review of std.parallelism

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday 19 March 2011 17:31:18 dsimcha wrote:
> On 3/19/2011 4:35 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > Furthermore, you should expect that the review process will prompt
> > changes. My perception is that you consider the submission more or less
> > final modulo possibly a few minor nits. You shouldn't. I'm convinced you
> > know much more about SMP than most or all others in this group, but in
> > no way that means your design has reached perfection and is beyond
> > improvement even from a non-expert.
> 
> In addition the the deadline issues already mentioned and resolved, I
> did misunderstand the review process somewhat.  I didn't participate in
> the reviews for std.datetime (because I know nothing about what makes a
> good date/time lib) or for std.unittest (because I was fairly ambivalent
> about it), so I didn't learn anything from them.  I was under the
> impression that the module is **expected** to be very close to its final
> form and that, if a lot of issues are found, then that basically means
> the proposal is going to be rejected.

Both std.datetime and std.unittests underwent a fair number of changes over the 
course the review process. A lot of the stuff stayed the same, but a lot of it 
changed too. On the whole, though, the end results were much better for it.

- Jonathan M Davis