www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - Review Candidates awaited!

reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
Looking at http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue there are 4 
proposals that are marked as "Ready for review" or "Ready for 
comments". I can proceed with any of those any time proposal 
author sends me an e-mail acknowledging his attention.

Walter Bright, Idan Arye, Paul D. Anderson, Michael Rynn - I am 
speaking about you ;)

Also if there is something ready but not in queue - don't 
hesitate about it.
Feb 01 2014
next sibling parent reply "Idan Arye" <GenericNPC gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 19:52:59 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 Looking at http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue there are 4 
 proposals that are marked as "Ready for review" or "Ready for 
 comments". I can proceed with any of those any time proposal 
 author sends me an e-mail acknowledging his attention.

 Walter Bright, Idan Arye, Paul D. Anderson, Michael Rynn - I am 
 speaking about you ;)

 Also if there is something ready but not in queue - don't 
 hesitate about it.


I would prefer that you start with std.xml2. XML is too damn 
common for D to not have a proper XML module in the standard 
library.

std.idioms can wait. It's ready as far as I care - it's a little 
bit thin(only two idioms), but the idea was that once it get 
accepted, other people can add their idioms there. But like I 
said - XML should get priority.
Feb 01 2014
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Saturday, February 01, 2014 23:54:06 Idan Arye wrote:

 On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 19:52:59 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 Looking at http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue there are 4
 proposals that are marked as "Ready for review" or "Ready for
 comments". I can proceed with any of those any time proposal
 author sends me an e-mail acknowledging his attention.
 
 Walter Bright, Idan Arye, Paul D. Anderson, Michael Rynn - I am
 speaking about you ;)
 
 Also if there is something ready but not in queue - don't
 hesitate about it.


 
 I would prefer that you start with std.xml2. XML is too damn
 common for D to not have a proper XML module in the standard
 library.
 
 std.idioms can wait. It's ready as far as I care - it's a little
 bit thin(only two idioms), but the idea was that once it get
 accepted, other people can add their idioms there. But like I
 said - XML should get priority.


I believe that the last time that Michael Rynn posted in the newsgroup was 
towards the beginning of 2012, and I don't think that he posted very many 
times before that, so I question that his proposal is ever going to go 
anywhere, even if it's completed and fantastic. He doesn't look like he's 
active enough to even see this call for review candidates let alone actually 
active enough to go through the review process.

- Jonathan M Davis
Feb 01 2014
next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 01:49:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 I believe that the last time that Michael Rynn posted in the 
 newsgroup was
 towards the beginning of 2012, and I don't think that he posted 
 very many
 times before that, so I question that his proposal is ever 
 going to go
 anywhere, even if it's completed and fantastic. He doesn't look 
 like he's
 active enough to even see this call for review candidates let 
 alone actually
 active enough to go through the review process.

 - Jonathan M Davis


Yup, I am going to transfer those entries into "On hold / 
Awaiting champion" status if authors won't express any interest 
during few next reviews.

Anyway, Brian has told me in IRC that his new (now generic) 
std.lexer is ready for initial review / discussion, so I'll go 
with it for now.

Idan, std.idioms can be next - there is no point in waiting for 
authors of other proposal to re-appear, queue is almost empty in 
practice.
Feb 02 2014
prev sibling parent reply Richard Webb <richard.webb boldonjames.com> writes:
On 02/02/2014 01:35, Jonathan M Davis wrote:


 I believe that the last time that Michael Rynn posted in the newsgroup was
 towards the beginning of 2012, and I don't think that he posted very many
 times before that, so I question that his proposal is ever going to go
 anywhere, even if it's completed and fantastic. He doesn't look like he's
 active enough to even see this call for review candidates let alone actually
 active enough to go through the review process.

 - Jonathan M Davis



xmlp was looking pretty good, but the last change made to the source was 
in April last year, so I have to guess that Michael has abandoned it :-(
Feb 03 2014
parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Monday, 3 February 2014 at 10:16:50 UTC, Richard Webb wrote:

 xmlp was looking pretty good, but the last change made to the 
 source was in April last year, so I have to guess that Michael 
 has abandoned it :-(


As far as I can see Michael code is Boost licensed so anyone can 
fork it and continiue as new champion.
Feb 03 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Suliman" <evermind live.ru> writes:
On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 19:52:59 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 Looking at http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue there are 4 
 proposals that are marked as "Ready for review" or "Ready for 
 comments". I can proceed with any of those any time proposal 
 author sends me an e-mail acknowledging his attention.

 Walter Bright, Idan Arye, Paul D. Anderson, Michael Rynn - I am 
 speaking about you ;)

 Also if there is something ready but not in queue - don't 
 hesitate about it.


Is this a good practice to give name: std.xml2 with digit at the 
end? Maybe it would be better to name it's simply std.xml ? And 
for prevent conflict rename old realization as std.xml.old ?

Also what what is the final decision about using std.unicode 
instead of std.uni? The first one is much more logical, than 
short variant.
Feb 01 2014
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/1/2014 10:52 PM, Suliman wrote:

 Is this a good practice to give name: std.xml2 with digit at the end? Maybe it
 would be better to name it's simply std.xml ?


I think the 2 postfix makes it abundantly clear it's a reboot without breaking 
existing code.



 And for prevent conflict rename old realization as std.xml.old ?


That breaks existing code, something we should avoid as much as practical.
Feb 12 2014
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig+dforum outerproduct.org> writes:
Am 12.02.2014 23:05, schrieb Walter Bright:

 On 2/1/2014 10:52 PM, Suliman wrote:

 Is this a good practice to give name: std.xml2 with digit at the end?
 Maybe it
 would be better to name it's simply std.xml ?


 I think the 2 postfix makes it abundantly clear it's a reboot without
 breaking existing code.



 And for prevent conflict rename old realization as std.xml.old ?


 That breaks existing code, something we should avoid as much as practical.


Don't want to start this discussion again, but there is a possibility to 
kill two birds with one stone here by naming it std.data.xml instead. 
The same would later go for std.data.json. Any future formats (as well 
as std.csv) could then also go to the std.data package and not clutter 
up the top level package further.
Feb 12 2014
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/12/2014 2:30 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 Don't want to start this discussion again, but there is a possibility to kill
 two birds with one stone here by naming it std.data.xml instead. The same would
 later go for std.data.json. Any future formats (as well as std.csv) could then
 also go to the std.data package and not clutter up the top level package
further.


That works, too.
Feb 12 2014
prev sibling parent "Joseph Cassman" <jc7919 outlook.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 22:30:14 UTC, Sönke Ludwig 
wrote:

 Don't want to start this discussion again, but there is a 
 possibility to kill two birds with one stone here by naming it 
 std.data.xml instead. The same would later go for 
 std.data.json. Any future formats (as well as std.csv) could 
 then also go to the std.data package and not clutter up the top 
 level package further.


That is clean. Being able to organize several formats into a 
single location. Also follows the pattern set by the digest.* 
modules.

Joseph
Feb 12 2014
prev sibling parent "Nicolas Sicard" <dransic gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 19:52:59 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 Looking at http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue there are 4 
 proposals that are marked as "Ready for review" or "Ready for 
 comments". I can proceed with any of those any time proposal 
 author sends me an e-mail acknowledging his attention.

 Walter Bright, Idan Arye, Paul D. Anderson, Michael Rynn - I am 
 speaking about you ;)

 Also if there is something ready but not in queue - don't 
 hesitate about it.


Paul Andersons's decimal library looks very promising, but isn't 
usable in its current github version. I think it's more of a 
'work in progress' and I hope that its development will be 
resumed.
Feb 15 2014