std.rational -- update and progress towards review

Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net
Thu Oct 3 05:16:42 PDT 2013


On 03/10/13 13:31, Dicebot wrote:
> My role as review manager does not matter here. Responsibility of review manager
> is to collect opinions and information from community, he does not have any
> authority of his own.

It's not about your opinions of the code per se, so much as about your 
experience of what is likely to provide a smooth review process that is less 
likely to end in rejection for trivial rather than major reasons (meaning a 
second round of review and therefore more work for you).

> Remembering std.serialization discussion though, it felt like people are more in
> favor of merging generic functionality into matching modules instead of keeping
> everything self-contained.
>
> You can also just do pull requests for smaller parts without any review if they
> are decoupled from std.rational - but be warned that waiting until those are
> reviewed and merged by Phobos devs may take a considerable time ;)

Yes, that's my fear. :-(

> In the end it is your own judgment. There are no strict rules and it is always
> good to see a module with personality behind ;)

I think I will follow Jacob's suggestion to make private all that is not 
_essential_ to have in public, with the scope to pull these out into broader 
Phobos later.  That should allow the essentials of std.rational to go forward 
without disturbing anything else, and then its generically useful stuff can be 
parcelled out later without delaying the module itself.

And of course if there is consensus during the review process that certain 
things _should_ be made public and moved elsewhere, I'll do that.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list