www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Review Queue

reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
So, where do things stand with the review queue now? I thought that we were 
getting ready to review std.benchmark, but that doesn't appear to have 
materialized for whatever reason (and I get the impression that Andrei is busy 
enough at the moment, that it's probably not the right time to review it right 
now anyway - though I could be wrong).

If we _are_ in a good position to review std.benchmark, then we really should 
get on with it, and if not, then we should move on to something else for the 
time being. We've gone too long without reviewing anything given that we 
supposedly have several items in the queue awaiting review.

- Jonathan M Davis
Jun 08 2012
next sibling parent "Jonas Drewsen" <jdrewsen nospam.com> writes:
On Friday, 8 June 2012 at 15:44:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 So, where do things stand with the review queue now?


Maybe Jose could give an update on the std.log situation. Is it 
ready for another round?

-Jonas
Jun 08 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On 08.06.2012 19:43, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 So, where do things stand with the review queue now? I thought that we were
 getting ready to review std.benchmark, but that doesn't appear to have
 materialized for whatever reason (and I get the impression that Andrei is busy
 enough at the moment, that it's probably not the right time to review it right
 now anyway - though I could be wrong).

 If we _are_ in a good position to review std.benchmark, then we really should
 get on with it, and if not, then we should move on to something else for the
 time being. We've gone too long without reviewing anything given that we
 supposedly have several items in the queue awaiting review.


I recall std.uuid was about to get reviewed. I'd vote for it, as it's 
nice and short module originating from C++ Boost.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Jun 08 2012
parent reply Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:18:24 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com>:


 
 I recall std.uuid was about to get reviewed. I'd vote for it, as it's 
 nice and short module originating from C++ Boost.
 


I just updated my std.uuid branch to latest phobos/dmd. Seems this time
nothing broke, so std.uuid is ready for review.

However, could somebody tell me if I have to revert this commit?
https://github.com/jpf91/phobos/commit/b4f3a821ffa7ad102fec0e24b2455b13c01f85a9

I think the changes to opEquals were rolled back, but what are the
correct signatures for opEquals and opCmp now?
Jun 09 2012
next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Saturday, June 09, 2012 09:34:51 Johannes Pfau wrote:

 I think the changes to opEquals were rolled back, but what are the
 correct signatures for opEquals and opCmp now?


For the moment, the correct way is to declare two overloads, both with const 
parameters, with one being ref:

bool opEquals(const S rhs)  safe const pure nothrow
{...}

bool opEquals(const ref S rhs)  safe const pure nothrow
{...}

and

int opCmp(const S rhs)  safe const pure nothrow
{...}

int opCmp(const ref S rhs)  safe const pure nothrow
{...}

You _might_ get away with not having the ref version, I don't know, but you 
need the non-ref version, and if you don't make it const but you do make the 
ref version const, then you're going to have problems (especially if you have 
the non-ref version call the ref version as is likely the case - you'd get 
infinite recursion).

- jonathan M Davis
Jun 09 2012
prev sibling parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On 09.06.2012 11:34, Johannes Pfau wrote:

 Am Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:18:24 +0400
 schrieb Dmitry Olshansky<dmitry.olsh gmail.com>:


 I recall std.uuid was about to get reviewed. I'd vote for it, as it's
 nice and short module originating from C++ Boost.


 I just updated my std.uuid branch to latest phobos/dmd. Seems this time
 nothing broke, so std.uuid is ready for review.


Then I suggest we start right away. I humbly propose myself as a review 
manager.


 However, could somebody tell me if I have to revert this commit?
 https://github.com/jpf91/phobos/commit/b4f3a821ffa7ad102fec0e24b2455b13c01f85a9

 I think the changes to opEquals were rolled back, but what are the
 correct signatures for opEquals and opCmp now?


I believe it's fine - one version for temporaries and the other one for 
l-values. AFAIK that the way it is at the moment.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Jun 09 2012
parent reply Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:01:06 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com>:


 On 09.06.2012 11:34, Johannes Pfau wrote:

 Am Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:18:24 +0400
 schrieb Dmitry Olshansky<dmitry.olsh gmail.com>:


 I recall std.uuid was about to get reviewed. I'd vote for it, as
 it's nice and short module originating from C++ Boost.


 I just updated my std.uuid branch to latest phobos/dmd. Seems this
 time nothing broke, so std.uuid is ready for review.


 
 Then I suggest we start right away. I humbly propose myself as a
 review manager.


Great! Here's the description text I used last time:


About std.uuid (copied from the module documentation):
---------------------
This is a port of boost.uuid from the boost project with some minor
additions and API changes for a more D-like API. A UUID, or Universally
unique identifier, is intended to uniquely identify information in a
distributed environment without significant central coordination. It
can be used to tag objects with very short lifetimes, or to reliably
identify very persistent objects across a network. UUIDs have many
applications. [...]
---------------------

Code: https://github.com/jpf91/phobos/blob/std.uuid/std/uuid.d
API-Docs: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24218791/d/src/uuid.html

Note: The code and documentation for shaUUID has already been written,
but until phobos has support for SHA1, that can't be included. The code
is currently commented out in the source file (it's well tested
with some 3rd party SHA1 code), but the documentation for those
functions is included in the API-docs. I think those functions should
be reviewed as well, so that it's possible to add them to phobos with a
simple pull request at a later date.
Jun 09 2012
parent Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On 09.06.2012 20:21, Johannes Pfau wrote:

 Am Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:01:06 +0400
 schrieb Dmitry Olshansky<dmitry.olsh gmail.com>:


 On 09.06.2012 11:34, Johannes Pfau wrote:

 Am Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:18:24 +0400
 schrieb Dmitry Olshansky<dmitry.olsh gmail.com>:


 I recall std.uuid was about to get reviewed. I'd vote for it, as
 it's nice and short module originating from C++ Boost.


 I just updated my std.uuid branch to latest phobos/dmd. Seems this
 time nothing broke, so std.uuid is ready for review.


 Then I suggest we start right away. I humbly propose myself as a
 review manager.


 Great! Here's the description text I used last time:


[snip]

Thanks, I've started a thread for review. Let me know if there is 
anything I should add.


I can't believe we've just restarted it (the review process) :)

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Jun 09 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "SomeDude" <lovelydear mailmetrash.com> writes:
On Friday, 8 June 2012 at 15:44:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 So, where do things stand with the review queue now? I thought 
 that we were
 getting ready to review std.benchmark, but that doesn't appear 
 to have
 materialized for whatever reason (and I get the impression that 
 Andrei is busy
 enough at the moment, that it's probably not the right time to 
 review it right
 now anyway - though I could be wrong).

 If we _are_ in a good position to review std.benchmark, then we 
 really should
 get on with it, and if not, then we should move on to something 
 else for the
 time being. We've gone too long without reviewing anything 
 given that we
 supposedly have several items in the queue awaiting review.

 - Jonathan M Davis


I was thinking the same. The review queue is stuck, it's not good.
Even if the module to be reviewed is not polished, I'm sure a 
review could help with some advice.
Jun 09 2012
prev sibling parent "Martin Nowak" <dawg dawgfoto.de> writes:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:43:47 +0200, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  
wrote:


 So, where do things stand with the review queue now?


The last change to the ReviewQueue is two month old.
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?action=archive&cmd=list&id=ReviewQueue
Jun 09 2012