std.getopt suggestion

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-10-02 02:31, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, October 02, 2011 01:35:09 David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On 10/2/11 1:01 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 10/1/11 4:17 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Not buying it. Sorry.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Sorry Andrei, not buying your opinion either.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> And how exactly did this get us any further? :P
>
> I think that it's quite clear at this point that no one is going to convince
> Andrei and that Andrei is not going to convince anyone else. I think that it's
> horrible that we have mutable global variables in std.getopt, but the actual
> impact in this particular case is fairly minor, and I don't think that it's
> worth continuing this argument that is clearly going nowhere. If it were a new
> module, we could vote against its inclusion in Phobos, but it's already in
> there and has been for some time. And since Andrei is the original author, and
> I'd prefer to not just change things like that when he's clearly in strong
> opposition to it (particularly in a module that _he_ wrote), we appear to be
> pretty much stuck with how it is. If anything, this is an example of why
> having a formal review process can be valuable.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

How about starting to review modules that existed before we started with 
the review process. But I guess many will complain that the time  can be 
better spent elsewhere.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg