[phobos] datetime review

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday 09 October 2010 20:06:29 David Simcha wrote:
> Yes, please do.  I don't plan on reviewing datetime in detail because I
> don't know much about the more complex use cases for it (the stuff that
> makes the design nontrivial), but I'd like to look at the public API in a
> way that makes the forest easily visible through the trees and see whether
> the simple things that I would use it for are sufficiently simple.

Well, like I said in my reply to Andrei, the html files are included in the Doc 
directory of the tarball that my link is to: http://is.gd/fS35q

Unfortunately, they don't look as nice as Phobos' documentation (since I just 
used the default ddoc output), but they're there.

I do think, however, that the biggest thing to worry about in reviewing my 
datetime code (or most any code which is submitted for review) is the API. The 
actual innards are of secondary concern. Sure, they should be reviewed, and in 
some cases (like your parallelism code), they should probably be reviewed in 
great detail, but first and foremost is the API. Once we have a good API, we can 
deal with fixing the implementation later if need be, but the API needs to be 
more or less correct from the start.

- Jonathan M Davis