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