New DIP73: D Drafting Library

Zach the Mystic via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Thu Feb 5 10:23:17 PST 2015


On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 06:56:52 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> You have clearly put a lot of effort in this. That makes me 
> very uneasy to repeat the same critique as earlier but, sadly, 
> it still all applies. This proposal tries to fix problems it 
> doesn't prove exist, doing so with solutions that are not 
> guranteed to help.
>
> It also wrongly explains current process of inclusion into 
> Phobos in general and specifically std.experimental - being 
> probably one of more involved persons with Phobos review queue 
> I feel like this needs to be explained.
>
> Considering all the discussion that happened during 
> std.experimental.logger I understand that we have settled with 
> pretty much this:
>
> 1) All Phobos proposals must go through std.experimental.logger
> 2) It must implement something generally desired in Phobos
> 3) Implementation is supposed to be at least stable enough to 
> not undergo a full rewrite after inclusion. Major API changes 
> are acceptable.
> 4) Before DMD/Phobos release is made existing packages that 
> feel stable can undergo a formal review for inclusion in Phobos 
> main package

It seems to me that number 2 is wrong. It doesn't matter what is 
generally desired. The final say depends completely on the 
leadership. Yes or No has to come from above. Or am I wrong about 
this?


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list