std.experimental.checkedint is ready for comments!

[tsbockman via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 07:02:21 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> 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?

I think that consideration should be given to splitting reviews 
into two phases by policy:

     1. The big picture: refining the overall design, and debating
        whether the change is worthwhile or not. This ends when the
        change has been formally approved by someone who has the
        authority to do so.

     2. Completing and polishing the implementation, until it is
        actually ready to merge.

Distinguish clearly between these phases, and make it clear to 
submitters that they are not required or expected to fix/finish 
all the little stuff until (1) is over, since there's a good 
chance it will all be irrelevant, anyway.

Obviously there will be some fuzziness as to whether an issue 
belongs in (1) or (2), but there's lots and lots of stuff that 
clearly falls into one or the other.

One of the things that such a policy would accomplish is to 
highlight the essential (but often ignored) question, "Who 
actually has authority to approve this?"