parseJSON bug

[Johannes Pfau]

Am Fri, 09 Aug 2013 00:39:50 +0200
schrieb "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator at gmail.com>:

> 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

I posted this to the wiki:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Wish_list/std.json
and linked it from http://wiki.dlang.org/Wish_list
If you know some better place for that page, feel free to move it.

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

Sometimes I wonder about that as well. We usually follow the 'batteries
included' approach and all kind of modules are accepted into phobos.
However Andrei often dislikes 'trivial to implement' functions and
simple helper functions or helper aliases.

> 
> 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

There was a discussion about std.json some time ago and the list I
posted is what I remember from that discussion. But we should really
document such 'requirements'. Though std.json is an exception here, we
usually don't have a list of 'requirements' before the module is
written.

> 
> 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.
> 
I totally agree. I think it's a problem with exaggerating API stability
when phobos is not ready for that yet. Although if it's really add-on
only this shouldn't be a problem.

> 
> > * 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.

This is working for some modules(std.algorithm, std.range). I don't
know why it's not working for modules like std.json or std.xml.