Formal review of std.lexer

[Meta]

On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 00:28:26 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
>[SNIP]

You're throwing what I said way out of proportion. I was replying 
to the statement:

"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."

I don't agree with this. Obviously std.lexer is well-written and 
has been through a few rounds of iteration, but that doesn't mean 
we should accept it without due diligence to ensure that we won't 
be regretting some overlooked, poorly-designed or badly-named 
piece of functionality down the road. "Good enough because we 
don't yet have anything better" is a bad idea. It seems to me 
that what Brian has written is much better than "good enough", 
but I don't think that it should be accepted into Phobos *solely* 
because we don't have anything else. If the community decides 
that it is a worthwhile addition, then great, but that must not 
happen *until* it has passed rigorous review, just like every 
other recent Phobos module.