std.experimental.checkedint is ready for comments!

[John Colvin via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 03:56:02 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
>
> 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?

I think anything sufficiently large is likely to be reviewed in 
that order. In a lot of cases all the work for 1 - 8 is 
progressively done while working out 9. Should people not mention 
the smaller mistakes / disagreements they find along the way 
until they've reached the end and can provide a final judgement?