On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 15:46:06 +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > On 01-09-2011 15:01, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:56:04 -0400, dsimcha wrote: >> >>> Since we have such an embarrassment of riches lately in terms of new >>> modules to be reviewed, we don't want bubbles in the review queue. >>> The first thing we need to decide is whether a review is allowed to >>> run concurrently with a vote. Andrei has suggested that reviews never >>> run concurrently with each other, and I agree. However, since the >>> vote stage takes up much less of the community's time, I think it's ok >>> to run a review and a vote concurrently with each other. >> >> I don't see any reason why a review can't run concurrently with a vote. >> I say we go ahead with reviewing the region allocator -- the GSoC >> projects should have a high priority. >> >> -Lars > > +1 to this. I'd like to see std.log after std.regionallocator. > > Completely unrelated question: What is the naming convention for Phobos > modules? If the name consists of two words does it become "twowords" or > "two_words"? I'm just asking because you mentioned parallel_algorithm > which got me a bit confused.
I seem to remember this being discussed, and the conclusion being that words should be separated with an underscore. Anyway, I personally don't think the region allocator should have its own module, it should be in std.allocator or something like that. AFAIK, the plan is to have multiple allocators adhering to the same interface. But that's probably a discussion for the review. ;) -Lars
