Formal review of std.lexer

Adam Wilson flyboynw at gmail.com
Mon Feb 24 15:07:07 PST 2014


On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:32:53 -0800, Meta <jared771 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 22:14:34 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
>> No criticism should stop this module being accepted, as we do not have  
>> any other lexer in the runtime anyway. Therefore I suggest we accept  
>> std.lexer until a better solution comes up. Naturally anyone should be  
>> encouraged to provide a better solution by submitting a pull request to  
>> Phobos developers...
>
> The problem is that this is what has been done before, and now we are  
> more or less stuck with outdated, sometimes poorly-written, often buggy  
> modules (std.signals being one example).

Well, we keep voting down replacement candidates, which incidentally, is  
exactly what happened with the std.signals replacement, so I view this as  
an orthogonal issue to whether or not it should be included after passing  
a review. I don't think the fact that a module might not be perfect after  
review should stop us from approving a module that offers completely new  
functionality AND passed a review. Handling the problems after inclusion  
is what bugzilla is for.

-- 
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list