New std.uni: ready for more beating

[Dmitry Olshansky]

31-Jan-2013 23:48, H. S. Teoh пишет:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:27:57PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> 30-Jan-2013 01:52, Dmitry Olshansky пишет:
>>> Recap:
>>> During a couple of rounds of the informal review new std.uni had its
>>> docs happily destroyed, and later re-written based on the feedback.
>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> - Squeezed extra 31Kb slack from object-file size (32 bits, more on
>>> 64).  Now all of the packed tables occupy around 350Kb (32bits) and
>>> If you happen to know some tricks to reduce object file size (and in
>>> turn the executable size), please chime in.
>>
>> My post got lost in the ether apparently. And it even wasn't complete
>> - and on 64bits it's 464Kb of tables alone. Needless to say I'm
>> worried about these sizes getting too large given that D is pretty
>> much statically linked ATM.
>
> It didn't get lost. I saw it. I just haven't had the chance to review it
> yet. :)
>

Great, I think I was spoiled by the great speed of the previous 
destructive review. I guess no news is good news :)

>
> [...]
>> Let me make it more explicit.
>>
>> I'm looking for a review manager and anybody willing to revive the
>> review process instead of venting steam on proper property (pun
>> intended) design and seeking a value in requiring parens on no-arg
>> call (or proving otherwise).
> [...]
>
> Yeah I've basically resorted to thread-deleting the entire @property
> thread along with its several unending sibling threads. It's not so much
> that I don't care about it, as that it's just gotten too long-winded and
> tiring. I'm ready to throw up my hands and let it all go down the pipes.
>
> I don't think I've the time/energy to be a review manager, but I *will*
> try to get to reviewing the code again sometime soon. IMNSHO, getting
> the new std.uni into Phobos is *far* more important (and far more
> profitable!) than the mountain out of molehill that is the current
> property discussion.
>
>
> T
>


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky