Vote on region allocator

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, September 24, 2011 11:06:59 dsimcha wrote:
> On 9/24/2011 3:08 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > On 9/24/11 1:19 CDT, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 24, 2011 01:10:44 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>> On 9/23/11 22:30 CDT, dsimcha wrote:
> >>>> On 9/23/2011 11:25 PM, Robert Jacques wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:53:46 -0400, Jonathan M Davis
> >>>>> <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> No. I cannot build an efficient and safe appender on this API.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The resize() fix you requested is going to get implemented. I just
> >>>> haven't actually added it yet.
> >>> 
> >>> Then we might be hasty to vote this in. Ideally Phobos should be
> >>> integrating tried and true APIs.
> >>> 
> >>> I wish we voted allocator in once it's used throughout std.container
> >>> to
> >>> great effect.
> >> 
> >> So, do you think that we should cease the vote then?
> > 
> > At the risk of annoying David and others, allow me to vote against
> > inclusion of the current proposal. There are three main reasons:
> > 
> > 1. The proposal has been changed mid-review.
> 
> It was changed mid-review in response to some legitimate criticism.  I
> thought this is the way the review process is supposed to work.

It is. std.datetime changed quite a bit over the course of its review process. 
However, there were major changes not long before the end of the review 
process, and they have not been thoroughly reviewed. Minor changes near the 
end are one thing, but in this case, a whole new module was created. Changes 
can and will occur through the review process, but those changes need to be 
reviewed as well.

- Jonathan M Davis