std.experimental.checkedint is ready for comments!

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/15/16 9:34 PM, tsbockman wrote:
> `checkedint` (and @burner's `SafeInt` before it) have been under
> development in the open for over a year now. There have been several
> discussions in the forums, with feedback being actively solicited.
> Significant design changes were made to address various people's needs.
> `SafeInt` was an open pull request for many months with 100+ comments
> accumulating in that time.
>
> Why didn't you make your design requirements known at any earlier point
> in this process? If you are ultimate gate keeper for Phobos (as you seem
> to be), you ought to make your requirements known *before* the
> implementation is finished.

Apologies about that. I've done a bit of spelunking to see what 
happened. Indeed the first reference to SafeInt is on a forum post on 
6/7/2015, followed immediately by 
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/3389 which entailed a long discussion.

You first posted about checkedint here on 6/30/2015, in a large thread.

At that time, I had the std.allocator review going on (started on 
6/11/2015), a newborn baby, and a move across the continent to worry 
about (which happened at the end of June). It is entirely possible I 
just missed that discussion, or more likely saw it and had no meaningful 
input at the time. There has been a gap in forum posts with "checkedint" 
in the title between 7/3/2015 and 6/7/2016, so it's not like there was a 
continuing presence I was working hard to ignore. I honestly think 
there's nothing to be offended over.

This underlies a larger issue. There must be a protocol that guarantees 
a proposal is brought to consideration to the D leadership. Dicebot is 
leading such an initiative (which can be seen as a revamping of DIPs) 
and we hope to get it finalized soon.


Andrei