On 2/6/15 11:53 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

I think your strawman is overstated. The "doomsday" is the current
situation to which you and Walter have objected.

I see that just as: code in poor style made its way in Phobos. It doesn't improve anything (e.g. didn't find bugs in std.file.read) and is just a net negative resulting from the corrupted use of a feature.

There's no completely automated protection against poor style.

If you think having
"better discipline" in reviews is going to fix it, I guess we will have
to wait and see what the evidence eventually does show. There isn't
evidence that either solution has worked, because neither has been
employed yet.

Logically, it makes sense to me that we should adjust how @trusted
operates to prevent preventable problems that you have identified. But
we can just keep the status quo and rely on manual process improvements
instead.

It's not terribly important to fix it right now, we can try your way
first, I don't see how adjusting the meaning of @trusted in the future
would be any more disruptive than it would be now.

If this is how it is to be, can we get some guidelines as to what should
and should not pass review for @trusted?

Wise words. Walter has a PR on docs, you may want to review it: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/890


Andrei

Reply via email to