New DIP73: D Drafting Library

[CraigDillabaugh via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 18:23:19 UTC, Zach the Mystic 
wrote:
> 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?

Well there is a voting process for getting libraries accepted 
into Phobos, and Andrei and Walter are not the only ones who 
vote.  However, if you implement something that Andrei/Walter are 
strongly opposed to, I suppose the vote could be vetoed.