Phobos addition formal review: std.experimental.allocator

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/13/15 11:49 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 00:24:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> So we have:
>>
>> * 1 request to change names;
>> * 3 requests to wank around the directory structure;
>> * 0 of everything else.
>>
>> Sigh.
>
> That is to be expected and intended for formal Phobos review.
> Implementation is not of much interest - it can be fixed at any point.
> Most important thing is to ensure that API feels right, documentation
> feels clear and people are in general comfortable with using proposed
> modules as they are.
>
> I will do more in-depth review but it will _all_ be about API and docs
> and naming.

Suggestions for better names are welcome as addenda, and I will act on 
some, but they're no substitute for competent reviews.

We need as a community to learn how to do good reviews. Anyone can put a 
finger on a name of a thing and say they like another name better. 
ANYONE. Real review of a library is figuring out how well the proposed 
library's abstractions fulfill its charter and intended use cases.


Andrei