On 01.09.2011 16:06, dsimcha wrote:
== 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.
While on this bikeshedding issue -- the name 'regionallocator' is
horribly long for such an important object. I think if it stays with a
long-winded name, it won't be used as frequently as it deserves.
