Formal Review Process

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 15:55:30 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 03:36:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > The whole _point_ of an official review is to review the API
> > that would end up in Phobos (the implementation is also
> > important but very much secondary).
> 
> Then what are you complaining about?

The way this submission is currently laid out, it couldn't possibly be merged 
into Phobos. If you can't create a pull reuest from what you have, then the 
API isn't ready. It needs to be laid out in a manner that we can see what the 
actual API would be if it were merged into Phobos. In this case, Jacob's 
submission is being presented as a 3rd party library rather than as how it 
would look as part of Phobos. If it's really ready for possible inclusion in 
Phobos, then it shouldn't be hard to create a version of it as a pull request 
for Phobos and present that, in which case we could see what its actual API in 
Phobos would be. If that can't be done, then I don't see how it could be ready 
for review. No matter how cool a 3rd party library may be, we're not reviewing 
3rd party libraries. We're reviewing new additions to Phobos, and submissions 
should be presented as such.

> Phobos is lacking in functionality to support Jabob's submission.
> I think it is wrong to require that Phobos be fixed prior to a
> formal review.

As Dmitry points out, some of that stuff can be kept internal for the time 
being and then separated out and move to the proper place in Phobos later. I 
believe that some of that happened with internals of std.regex and what's now 
going to be in std.uni.

- Jonathan M Davis