std.rational -- update and progress towards review

[Brad Roberts]

On 10/4/13 1:39 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 04/10/13 21:00, Brad Roberts wrote:
>> Ideally, the unrelated but required non-rational code would be delt with before
>> the review, then the issue is moot.  If you've got important or useful changes
>> to other parts of phobos, separate them and get them delt with.
>
> I don't mind doing that, but it seemed to me that _all_ of this code deserved the level of scrutiny
> that a formal review would bring, both generic and specialized parts.

That's not an argument against splitting the changes up and getting the dependencies handled first. 
  It's an argument to do a good job with both sets of changes, which I agree with.