std.jgrandson

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/3/14, 11:37 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 03.08.2014 17:34, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> On 8/3/14, 2:38 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> We need to address the matter of std.jgrandson competing with
>> vibe.data.json. Clearly at a point only one proposal will have to be
>> accepted so the other would be wasted work.
>>
>> Following our email exchange I decided to work on this because (a) you
>> mentioned more work is needed and your schedule was unclear, (b) we need
>> this at FB sooner rather than later, (c) there were a few things I
>> thought can be improved in vibe.data.json. I hope that taking
>> std.jgrandson to proof spurs things into action.
>>
>> Would you want to merge some of std.jgrandson's deltas into a new
>> proposal std.data.json based on vibe.data.json? Here's a few things that
>> I consider necessary:
>>
>> 1. Commit to a schedule. I can't abandon stuff in wait for the perfect
>> design that may or may not come someday.
>
> This may be the crux w.r.t. the vibe.data.json implementation. My
> schedule will be very crowded this month, so I could only really start
> to work on it beginning of September. But apart from the mentioned
> points, I think your implementation is already the closest thing to what
> I have in mind, so I'm all for going the clean slate route (I'll have to
> do a lot in terms of deprecation work in vibe.d anyway).

What would be your estimated time of finishing?

Would anyone want to take vibe.data.json and std.jgrandson, put them in 
a crucible, and have std.data.json emerge from it in a timely manner? My 
understanding is that everyone involved would be cool with that.


Andrei