std.d.lexer : voting thread

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, October 07, 2013 17:16:45 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> So with this I'm leaving it all within the hands of the submitter and
> the review manager. I didn't count the votes, but we may have a "yes"
> majority built up. Since additional evidence has been introduce, I
> suggest at least a revote. Ideally, there would be enough motivation for
> Brian to suspend the review and integrate the proposed design within
> std.d.lexer.

I think that it's worth noting that if this vote passes, it will be the first 
vote for a Phobos module which passed and had any "no" votes cast against it 
(at least, if any of the previous modules had any "no" votes, I don't recall 
them; it's always been overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion). That in and of 
itself implies that the situation needs further examination. Though maybe it's 
simply that this particular module is in an area where we have more posters 
with strong opinions.

Also, in general, I tend to think that we should move towards not merging new 
modules into Phobos as quickly as we have in the past. Whether the "stdx" 
proposal is the way to go or not is another matter, but I think that we should 
aim for having modules be more battle-tested before actually becoming full-
fledged modules in Phobos. We've had great stuff reviewed and merged thus far, 
but we also tend to end up having to make minor tweaks to the API or later 
come to regret including it at all (e.g. std.net.curl). Having some sort of 
intermediate step prior to full inclusion for at least one or two releases 
would be a good move IMHO.

- Jonathan M Davis