On 3/19/2011 8:48 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
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
Please check your newsreader settings. You've been double-posting a lot
lately.
