On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 00:31:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/10/2014 11:46 AM, Dicebot wrote:
I personally will vote "No" for any new proposal that looks
obviously alien from
existing Phobos code, despite it being possibly very useful
and desired and
backed by sound reasoning.
1. There are many, many package folders in phobos/druntime that
do not have a package.d.
2. package.d can always be added. But it cannot be subtracted.
Hence, it is best not to add it "just because", it needs more
compelling arguments.
Oh, this was not related to package.d (it is a new thing and
can't have established guidelines) - more of a general statement.
For example, you have been arguing in PR to keep `lwr` and `upr`
identifiers while quick grep shows that there is not a single
place in Phobos which uses such naming scheme in public API. Such
things are not related to any architectural choices - those are
personal preferences and thus is less important than existing
style guidelines by definition.
