Why isn't dip1000 fully implemented yet?

[Daniel N]

On Thursday, 22 November 2018 at 16:35:15 UTC, Neia Neutuladh 
wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:32:30 +0000, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>> On Thursday, 22 November 2018 at 11:55:14 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
>>> "impossible to review" is a very strong statement, how then 
>>> were you able to write the spec?
>> 
>> I guessed, well, I wrote it the way I think what he has done 
>> ought to
>> work.
>> Hence why Walter needs to review it.
>
> In other words, you need the spec PR to demonstrate intent. The 
> most you can get from reviewing the dmd PR is that the code 
> does something that seems reasonable on the face of it and 
> probably won't blow up in anyone's face too much.

There is a big difference between:
a) Sorry, *I* am not able to review this but maybe someone else 
can?
b) Adding a Label which prevents everyone from reviewing/pulling.
(At least I normally don't even look at blocked work, since then 
PR probably needs to be updated in the future and then anyway 
reviewed once again...)