std.experimental.checkedint is ready for comments!

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/15/16 11:56 PM, tsbockman 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.

I am sure there were, which was especially visible to you because you 
were following the project. Some examples would be helpful so I can 
learn from them.

>> so it's not like there was a continuing presence I was working hard to
>> ignore. I honestly think there's nothing to be offended over.
>
> 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).

Agreed malice is not required. But I'm still having trouble seeing the 
offense. Annoyance at a negative review, sure, we're all human. But 
taking offense? The closest anything came to "demanding" anything has been:

> This suggests a much simpler design [...]
> But I suggest you to reconsider.

How could I have phrased my review and follow-up in ways that are not 
offensive? Should I have just accepted the proposal on grounds that a 
lot of work has been put into it and the deadline has passed for 
influencing it? (Non-rhetorical questions.)

> 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.

I can see how that could be happening. Often (and in this case) there 
are different folks touching on the different points.


Andrei