The review of the new std.path is drawing to a close and it looks like
another success! (Congratulations, Lars.) Lately, though, the queue of
stuff to review has been getting rather long, admittedly a problem we'd
like to have. I want to get a list of stuff that's ready or will be
ready in s
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:22:46 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
std.process (New and much improved, by Steve Schveighoffer and IIRC Lars
Kylingstad also contributed. Personally I'd like this to be given a
high priority b/c the old std.process sucks so much and it's been
waiting so long for compiler bu
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:22:46 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
> The review of the new std.path is drawing to a close and it looks like
> another success! (Congratulations, Lars.) Lately, though, the queue of
> stuff to review has been getting rather long, admittedly a problem we'd
> like to have. I want t
Where is this new std.process btw.? Is it on github or somewhere?
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:07:53 +0300, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
Where is this new std.process btw.? Is it on github or somewhere?
I believe this is it:
https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/blob/new-std-process/std/process.d
--
Best regards,
Vladimirmailto:vladi...
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:12:49 -0400, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:07:53 +0300, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
Where is this new std.process btw.? Is it on github or somewhere?
I believe this is it:
https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/blob/new-std-process/std/process.d
J
"dsimcha" wrote in message
news:j1u0o8$2gdg$1...@digitalmars.com...
> The review of the new std.path is drawing to a close and it looks like
> another success! (Congratulations, Lars.) Lately, though, the queue of
> stuff to review has been getting rather long, admittedly a problem we'd
> li
Am 10.08.2011, 15:51 Uhr, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer
:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:22:46 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
std.process (New and much improved, by Steve Schveighoffer and IIRC
Lars Kylingstad also contributed. Personally I'd like this to be given
a high priority b/c the old std.process
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:25:44 +0200, Marco Leise wrote:
> Am 10.08.2011, 15:51 Uhr, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer
> :
>
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:22:46 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
>>
>>> std.process (New and much improved, by Steve Schveighoffer and IIRC
>>> Lars Kylingstad also contributed. Personally
On 8/10/2011 9:22 AM, dsimcha wrote:
The review of the new std.path is drawing to a close and it looks like
another success! (Congratulations, Lars.) Lately, though, the queue of
stuff to review has been getting rather long, admittedly a problem we'd
like to have. I want to get a list of stuff th
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, dsimcha wrote:
> On 8/10/2011 9:22 AM, dsimcha wrote:
>
>> The review of the new std.path is drawing to a close and it looks like
>> another success! (Congratulations, Lars.) Lately, though, the queue of
>> stuff to review has been getting rather long, admittedly
On Friday, August 12, 2011 10:48 Jimmy Cao wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, dsimcha wrote:
> > On 8/10/2011 9:22 AM, dsimcha wrote:
> >> The review of the new std.path is drawing to a close and it looks like
> >> another success! (Congratulations, Lars.) Lately, though, the queue of
> >>
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>On Friday, August 12, 2011 10:48 Jimmy Cao wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, dsimcha wrote:
>> > On 8/10/2011 9:22 AM, dsimcha wrote:
>> >> The review of the new std.path is drawing to a close and it looks
>> >> like another success! (Congratulations, Lars.) Latel
Johannes Pfau Wrote:
> >std.log has been in the review queue the longest, so I would say that
> >that should be next except that when I posted a question about it a
> >couple of days ago, he never responded. So, we should probably just
> >review the curl wrapper next and get on with it.
> >
> >- J
I say give Jonas one more day to post the official review request for the Curl
wrapper, and if he doesn't then we can move CSV parser ahead.
1. We've got an embarrassment of riches with how long the review queue is
getting. It's a shame to have so many bubbles in it.
2. If Jonas is busy/out of
On 2011-08-15 20:19, dsimcha wrote:
I say give Jonas one more day to post the official review request for the Curl
wrapper, and if he doesn't then we can move CSV parser ahead.
1. We've got an embarrassment of riches with how long the review queue is
getting. It's a shame to have so many bubbl
On Monday, August 15, 2011 20:52:46 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-08-15 20:19, dsimcha wrote:
> > I say give Jonas one more day to post the official review request for
> > the Curl wrapper, and if he doesn't then we can move CSV parser ahead.
> >
> > 1. We've got an embarrassment of riches with
Den 15-08-2011 20:19, dsimcha skrev:
I say give Jonas one more day to post the official review request for the Curl
wrapper, and if he doesn't then we can move CSV parser ahead.
1. We've got an embarrassment of riches with how long the review queue is
getting. It's a shame to have so many bubb
On Monday, August 15, 2011 13:34 jdrewsen wrote:
> Den 15-08-2011 20:19, dsimcha skrev:
> > I say give Jonas one more day to post the official review request for the
> > Curl wrapper, and if he doesn't then we can move CSV parser ahead.
> >
> > 1. We've got an embarrassment of riches with how long
19 matches
Mail list logo
