Request for review: std.net.isemail

[dsimcha]

On 3/22/2011 6:04 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I've now finished the port of Dominic Sayers' PHP is_email function
> (http://www.dominicsayers.com/isemail) and sending it for review.
>
> A few comments:
>
> * Due to limitations in std.regex some unit tests fail and are out
> commented
>
> * Due to some bugs (4673, 5744) in Phobos this module contains private
> functions with fixes for these bugs
>
> * The DNS check is not implemented resulting in a few out commented unit
> tests
>
> Github: https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/phobos/tree/isemail
> Documentation: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18386187/isemail.html
>

Two questions:

1.  When is this module scheduled for a vote?  The review process has 
fizzled out.  This may be because the module is so simple that noone has 
any major issues.  It solves a simple problem (at a conceptual 
level--this is not meant to trivialize the detail work of implementing 
the standard correctly) with a correspondingly simple interface, so I'm 
already a "yes".  It may also be because there's no urgency since 
there's no looming vote date.

2.  Is voting for one module allowed to run concurrently with reviewing 
for another?  I'm thinking about how we'll manage the review queue while 
voting on this module.

I propose we keep review open through March 28 (one full week of 
review), then vote.  If there are major suggestions that Jacob needs 
extra time to consider or implement, the review can be stashed (like my 
std.parallelism review was) to allow time for this.  Otherwise, voting 
runs from the 29th through April 4.

Next in queue would be an un-stashing of std.parallelism.  I propose 
that we have one additional week of review for this concurrently with 
the vote for std.net.isemail, then have the std.parallelism vote right 
after the isemail vote.  std.parallelism has been through a lot of 
review already, so despite its complexity it probably doesn't need more 
than a week of additional review.