On 10/6/13 1:41 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/6/13 10:10 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Sunday, 6 October 2013 at 17:08:25 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
isn't this really what has just been discussed under the proposed name
of stdx?
... and if so, why isn't it being used?
This is exactly why I'm not too thrilled to make another attempt at
establishing something like that. ;)
We could improve things on our end by featuring etc documentation more
prominently etc. I don't
think there's a need to reboot things with stdx. Just improve etc.
Andrei
I'm largely staying out of this conversation, but there's one area that I think is pretty important,
speed of development.
By having a less official, more readily committable to, repository it stands to reason that it'll
evolve faster and fluidly than the phobos code base docs or should. Some of it is just that phobos
pull requests lanquish too long, but that's not ALL it is. The bar should be different, not that
phobos' bar should be lower.
My 2 cents,
Brad
