Phobos for Review: std.buffer.scopebuffer

[Dicebot]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 00:31:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/10/2014 11:46 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>> I personally will vote "No" for any new proposal that looks 
>> obviously alien from
>> existing Phobos code, despite it being possibly very useful 
>> and desired and
>> backed by sound reasoning.
>
> 1. There are many, many package folders in phobos/druntime that 
> do not have a package.d.
>
> 2. package.d can always be added. But it cannot be subtracted. 
> Hence, it is best not to add it "just because", it needs more 
> compelling arguments.

Oh, this was not related to package.d (it is a new thing and 
can't have established guidelines) - more of a general statement. 
For example, you have been arguing in PR to keep `lwr` and `upr` 
identifiers while quick grep shows that there is not a single 
place in Phobos which uses such naming scheme in public API. Such 
things are not related to any architectural choices - those are 
personal preferences and thus is less important than existing 
style guidelines by definition.