New std.uni: ready for more beating

[H. S. Teoh]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:27:57PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> 30-Jan-2013 01:52, Dmitry Olshansky пишет:
> >Recap:
> >During a couple of rounds of the informal review new std.uni had its
> >docs happily destroyed, and later re-written based on the feedback.
> >
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >- Squeezed extra 31Kb slack from object-file size (32 bits, more on
> >64).  Now all of the packed tables occupy around 350Kb (32bits) and
> >If you happen to know some tricks to reduce object file size (and in
> >turn the executable size), please chime in.
> 
> My post got lost in the ether apparently. And it even wasn't complete
> - and on 64bits it's 464Kb of tables alone. Needless to say I'm
> worried about these sizes getting too large given that D is pretty
> much statically linked ATM.

It didn't get lost. I saw it. I just haven't had the chance to review it
yet. :)


[...]
> Let me make it more explicit.
> 
> I'm looking for a review manager and anybody willing to revive the
> review process instead of venting steam on proper property (pun
> intended) design and seeking a value in requiring parens on no-arg
> call (or proving otherwise).
[...]

Yeah I've basically resorted to thread-deleting the entire @property
thread along with its several unending sibling threads. It's not so much
that I don't care about it, as that it's just gotten too long-winded and
tiring. I'm ready to throw up my hands and let it all go down the pipes.

I don't think I've the time/energy to be a review manager, but I *will*
try to get to reviewing the code again sometime soon. IMNSHO, getting
the new std.uni into Phobos is *far* more important (and far more
profitable!) than the mountain out of molehill that is the current
property discussion.


T

-- 
I'm still trying to find a pun for "punishment"...