On 03/10/13 16:38, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 12:16:51 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
It's not about your opinions of the code per se, so much as about your
experience of what is likely to provide a smooth review process ...
Experience? :D I have not yet finished a single complete review process.
You've managed a few, no? :-P
Anyway, here's the state of play: I have two distinct branches that both
implement std.rational as a new module in Phobos.
https://github.com/WebDrake/phobos/tree/rational implements things as I think
they should be, with several generic functions/templates parcelled out to
std.traits and std.numeric.
https://github.com/WebDrake/phobos/tree/rational-standalone implements things as
a standalone module with all non-essential functions (or local duplications)
marked as private.
I would be happy for either or preferably both side-by-side to be subject to
review now. I think both are at the point where my asking on the forums is not
going to get this code the scrutiny it needs. That said, my concern is that
there will be some significant changes requested and it may be knocked back this
time -- which is why I've tried asking questions on the forums in the first place.
So really, as review manager, it's your call. If you'd like me to keep
following up on my concerns and delay submission, I'll do that, but if you're
happy to move forward, let's do it. :-)
Thanks & best wishes,
-- Joe
