On Saturday 19 March 2011 17:31:18 dsimcha wrote: > On 3/19/2011 4:35 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > Furthermore, you should expect that the review process will prompt > > changes. My perception is that you consider the submission more or less > > final modulo possibly a few minor nits. You shouldn't. I'm convinced you > > know much more about SMP than most or all others in this group, but in > > no way that means your design has reached perfection and is beyond > > improvement even from a non-expert. > > In addition the the deadline issues already mentioned and resolved, I > did misunderstand the review process somewhat. I didn't participate in > the reviews for std.datetime (because I know nothing about what makes a > good date/time lib) or for std.unittest (because I was fairly ambivalent > about it), so I didn't learn anything from them. I was under the > impression that the module is **expected** to be very close to its final > form and that, if a lot of issues are found, then that basically means > the proposal is going to be rejected.
Both std.datetime and std.unittests underwent a fair number of changes over the course the review process. A lot of the stuff stayed the same, but a lot of it changed too. On the whole, though, the end results were much better for it. - Jonathan M Davis