On 10/4/13 7:16 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
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
Ideally, the unrelated but required non-rational code would be delt with before the review, then the
issue is moot. If you've got important or useful changes to other parts of phobos, separate them
and get them delt with.
