Formal review of std.lexer

[Adam Wilson]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:22:32 -0800, Meta <jared771 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Fair enough. I guess I am just still touchy after the way std.signals was  
shot down. There weren't great technical arguments for shooting it down  
and so I feel that a good piece of code that would've been immediately  
useful and accepted by the community was rejected over some pretty silly  
fears.

Note that I as badly as I want std.lexer to be included I want it to pass  
a rigorous review. This review (and, is passing, subsequent inclusion) has  
opened up an opportunity to start using D at work that I did not expect  
and so I am kind of excited about it.

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