On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 15:55:30 Jesse Phillips wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 03:36:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > 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). > > Then what are you complaining about?
The way this submission is currently laid out, it couldn't possibly be merged into Phobos. If you can't create a pull reuest from what you have, then the API isn't ready. It needs to be laid out in a manner that we can see what the actual API would be if it were merged into Phobos. In this case, Jacob's submission is being presented as a 3rd party library rather than as how it would look as part of Phobos. If it's really ready for possible inclusion in Phobos, then it shouldn't be hard to create a version of it as a pull request for Phobos and present that, in which case we could see what its actual API in Phobos would be. If that can't be done, then I don't see how it could be ready for review. No matter how cool a 3rd party library may be, we're not reviewing 3rd party libraries. We're reviewing new additions to Phobos, and submissions should be presented as such. > Phobos is lacking in functionality to support Jabob's submission. > I think it is wrong to require that Phobos be fixed prior to a > formal review. As Dmitry points out, some of that stuff can be kept internal for the time being and then separated out and move to the proper place in Phobos later. I believe that some of that happened with internals of std.regex and what's now going to be in std.uni. - Jonathan M Davis