On 6/6/2013 10:50 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Some modules have needed been redone. Some still do. But we already _did_
rework std.path. We agreed that we liked the new API, and it's been working
great. It's one thing to revisit an API that's been around since before we had
ranges or a review process. It's an entirely different thing to be constantly
reworking entire modules. I think that we need _very_ strong justification to
redesign a module that we already put through the review process. And I really
don't think that we have it here.
I think we're in violent agreement.
An example of a strong justification for a redo is, for example, conversion to
use ranges. std.zip needs that treatment.
