On Thursday, September 01, 2011 14:05:37 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: > 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.
And I would have said the opposite. Certainly, all existing modules are all lowercase and have no underscores. One with underscores would stand out like a sore thumb. - Jonathan M Davis
