std.experimental.logger formal review round 3

[ponce via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 at 01:12:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 11/24/2014 4:51 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 at 00:37:00 UTC, Walter Bright 
>> wrote:
>>> Anyone know anything about this?
>>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2n9gfb/d_is_for_data_science/cmbssac
>>>
>>
>> You are posting to page 16 of the third iteration of a single 
>> review.
>
> I know, and the reddit comment refers to this.

This discussion is indeed most unsettling to read. Third review 
of a much-needed module in the ecosystem, and I remember of 
previous attempts at logging, each time taken down because it 
does not satisfy the whims of top-tier D developers that would 
have done it differently (and of course "better").

What is accepted or not in Phobos no longer interest me. I can 
rely on interesting modules through DUB which has versionned 
dependencies, while Phobos has not.
Better XML parsers/JSON parsers/serialization/argument parsers 
exist outside of Phobos currently, and in my opinion maybe they 
didn't belong there in the first place.