On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 00:28:26 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
[SNIP]
You're throwing what I said way out of proportion. I was replying
to the statement:
"No criticism should stop this module being accepted, as we do not
have any other lexer in the runtime anyway. Therefore I suggest
we accept std.lexer until a better solution comes up."
I don't agree with this. Obviously std.lexer is well-written and
has been through a few rounds of iteration, but that doesn't mean
we should accept it without due diligence to ensure that we won't
be regretting some overlooked, poorly-designed or badly-named
piece of functionality down the road. "Good enough because we
don't yet have anything better" is a bad idea. It seems to me
that what Brian has written is much better than "good enough",
but I don't think that it should be accepted into Phobos *solely*
because we don't have anything else. If the community decides
that it is a worthwhile addition, then great, but that must not
happen *until* it has passed rigorous review, just like every
other recent Phobos module.
