std.serialization: pre-voting review / discussion

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-08-18 20:26, Dicebot wrote:

> OK, time to make a short summary.
>
> There have been mentioned several issues / improvement possibilities. I
> don't think they prevent voting and it is up to Jacob to decide what he
> want to incorporate from it.

I've been quite busy lately but I've tried to address the minor issues 
with regards of documentation. I've hit a new problem in the process:

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/kujcns$1quo$1@digitalmars.com

> However, there are two things that do matter in my opinion - pre-UDA
> part of API and uncertainty about range-based lazy approach. Important
> thing here is that while library can be included with plenty of features
> lacking we can't really afford to break its API only few releases later
> just to add/remove these features.

What do you mean with "pre-UDA part of API"?

I think it will be fairly easy to add support for ranges, at least for 
the output. I'll see what I can do.

> So as a review manager, I think voting should be delayed until API is
> ready to address lazy range-based work model. No actual implementation
> is required but
>
> 1) it should be possible to do it later without breaking user code
> 2) library should not make an assumption about implementation being lazy
> or eager
>
> That is my understanding based on current knowledge of Phobos modules,
> please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Jacob, please tell if you have any objections or, if this decision
> sounds reasonable - just contact me via e-mail when you will find
> std.serialization suitable for final voting. I think it is pretty clear
> that package itself is considered useful and welcome to Phobos.


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg