std.experimental.checkedint is ready for comments!

[tsbockman via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 21:02:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/15/2016 8:56 PM, tsbockman wrote:
>> 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?
>
> It's a consequence of starting to read a document cold, i.e. 
> the first thing noticed is the formatting, then the typos, then 
> the names, etc.
>
> A deep understanding of the design comes much later, only after 
> having thoroughly read it and hit all the speedbumps of typos, 
> etc.

Yes I understand - it's a very natural thing to do (and I have 
done it myself).

I think my suggestion fundamentally boils down to, "Try to 
communicate to submitters early on who needs to approve their 
change, and that they may delay addressing all the lesser issues 
until after their basic proposal has been (tentatively) approved."

My problem with `checkedint` was that I formed a wrong idea of 
whose approval I needed (interested Phobos devs collectively, 
versus Andrei specifically).