std.experimental.checkedint is ready for comments!

[lobo via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 03:56:02 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:53:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Numerous other mentions were made of this project in various 
> contexts on the forums, in GitHub pull requests, and on the bug 
> tracker - including discussions in which you participated. 
> 'posts with "checkedint" in the title' is too narrow of a 
> search filter.
>
>> [...]
>
> Malicious intent is not required to make the act offensive; 
> you're still jumping into a project a year in the making and 
> demanding that I choose between investing an additional six 
> months (wild guess) of my time working on things I don't care 
> about (at best), or canceling the project (which has otherwise 
> received generally positive feedback so far).
>
> I am not too upset mostly because I had a variety of reasons 
> for pursuing this, not all of which depend on getting it into 
> Phobos.
>
>> [...]
>
> That is part of the problem, but this is also a fine example of 
> a broader pattern that I have noticed in D's review process:
>
> Pull requests are routinely reviewed in an upside-down fashion:
>
> 1) Formatting
> 2) Typos
> 3) Names
> 4) Tests (and names again)
> 6) Docs (and names)
> 8) Design (and more about names)
> 9) Does this even belong in Phobos?
>
> I don't think people are doing it on purpose - it's just easier 
> to start with the trivial nit-picks, because you don't need a 
> deep understanding of the code and the problem domain (or 
> decision-making authority) to complain about a missing ' ' or 
> something.
>
> But, that doesn't change the fact that the process still feels 
> almost perfectly designed to waste contributors' time.
>
> Unless the PR is a complete mess, (9) and (8) should be debated 
> *first*, before worrying about any of the other stuff. Why 
> waste people's time fixing trivialities, if it's all going to 
> just be deleted or rewritten anyway?



Has this work/design been submitted as a DIP? I cannot find it.

I thought all Phobos additions of any magnitude were required to 
pass the DIP submission first in order to avoid this sort of 
situation. If there is a DIP that was accepted then to have it 
knocked back now would suck.

Without a DIP you have to expect the design could be turned down 
by any core developer when they first get the opportunity to 
review it, no matter how long after the work was initiated.

bye,
lobo