review of std.parallelism

[dsimcha]

On 3/19/2011 8:48 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> 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

Please check your newsreader settings.  You've been double-posting a lot 
lately.