On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 05:24:53 Jesse Phillips wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 02:46:07 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer > > wrote: > > Any code ready for review must have a clear indication of how > > the API will look when it's pulled into Phobos. If it's not to > > that state, the code cannot really be reviewed as a possible > > contribution to Phobos. > > I have to stop you there, it appears your premise is off. This is > not about the API being ready for Phobos, this is about having a > pull request-able submission. As you say a little bit later the > implementation details can be worked out later, or what I'm > advocating, we can decided where his util parts fit into Phobos > later.
The whole _point_ of an official review is to review the API that would end up in Phobos (the implementation is also important but very much secondary). If a submission's API isn't ready to be merged into Phobos assuming that it passed the vote, then it isn't ready for review. Period. I don't see how this could even be debatable. Sure, the end result may be quite a bit different from the original API depending on what happens in the review, but the review process is for ironing out the final kinks in the API, not for designing it. Sure, prior to the API being ready, you can submit code for folks to review for you, but that's completely different from an official Phobos review. The whole point of that is to review and vote on the actual API that's going to end up in Phobos. - Jonathan M Davis