parseJSON bug

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 22:19:28 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> I'd like to explain the special issue we have with std.json -
> as far as I understand it:
> *snip*

This actually brings up the main beefs I have with the phobos dev 
process:

1) your requirements list should be prominently documented, so 
people considering writing something for phobos know what is 
needed up front

2) what's considered for phobos and what is just outside its 
scope?

3) these processes should be more authoritative than "as far as I 
understand it" - then new people could get involved with 
reviewing too, since they have an objective list of stuff to be 
on the lookout for and don't have to wait for someone else to 
come along and say something

4) phobos lets the perfect be the enemy of the good. std.json 
really isn't that bad, and ~50 lines of prettier add-on API could 
make it nicer, but instead of doing that we wait years for 
something that doesn't seem to be happening at all.


> * the orignal author is no longer around. AFAICS there's nobody 
> feeling responsible for this module.

This is a problem too: a module shouldn't be in the hands of one 
person. If any random contributor follows the documented rules, 
they should get their code pulled in. Since phobos is a community 
project, I think we should all be equally responsible for every 
part of it. One person might take the lead and do most the 
work.... but it shouldn't be *exclusive*, so if that one person 
can't or won't do something, someone else can just do it.