== Quote from Alex Rønne Petersen ([email protected])'s article > 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. > - Alex
Beats me. I was actually hoping we'd discuss that in the upcoming reviews. I'm not at all adverse to changing the name of std.parallel_algorithm or making a std.allocators package to put RegionAllocator in. (The latter will almost certainly happen since the proposal now includes a wrapper struct to wrap the GC in an allocator interface as a throw-in. We can't have a top-level std.regionallocator and std.gcallocator. This would be ridiculous.) I regard these names as provisional.
