Dne 29.7.2014 7:11, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
(sorry for being a bit late, was distracted)
std.logger proposal by Robert Schadek enters voting period which will
last two weeks starting from now.
Discussion thread :
http://forum.dlang.org/post/zhvmkbahrqtgkptdl...@forum.dlang.org
This voting will be somewhat different from previous ones because it
will be done with std.experimental in mind. Because of that please reply
with a bit more structured votes:
1) Yes / No for inclusion into std.experimental
At this point please consider if module has functionality you want to
see in standard library in general and if implementation is not
fundamentally broken. This is a simple sanity check.
Yes.
The API is sane and the design has withstood a lot of relevant criticism
as well as bikeshedding. Although, I do not really like log function
suffixes and would prefer overloads.
2) Yes / No for inclusion into Phobos in its current state
This is where you should summarize your concerns raised during review if
there are any and make decision if existing API / architecture are
promising enough to be set in stone via Phobos inclusion.
No.
There were a lot of changes during the review process. The module should
IMO go to experimental to have some time to take care of all those small
things as well as to get (hopefully) some larger adoption.
3) If you have answered "No" for (2) : list of mandatory changes that
are needed to make you vote "Yes"
For me it is the stay in std.experimental and seeing that nobody is
pressing for another api changes (like Andrei is doing now).
4) Any additional comments for author.
Great work and some great patience you have displayed in the process.
Thank you!
