On Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:09:29 Walter Bright wrote: > On 6/6/2013 10:50 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > Some modules have needed been redone. Some still do. But we already _did_ > > rework std.path. We agreed that we liked the new API, and it's been > > working > > great. It's one thing to revisit an API that's been around since before we > > had ranges or a review process. It's an entirely different thing to be > > constantly reworking entire modules. I think that we need _very_ strong > > justification to redesign a module that we already put through the review > > process. And I really don't think that we have it here. > > I think we're in violent agreement.
Yes. I was replying in support of your argument rather than replying directly to Dylan. > An example of a strong justification for a redo is, for example, conversion > to use ranges. std.zip needs that treatment. Agreed. - Jonathan M Davis