Some of these don't exist yet, if I'm not mistaken? On 14 nov 2010, at 09:05, SHOO wrote:
> I think that it is important that we prioritize our to-do list. > > Therefore I think that firstly we should make a list. Next, it is necessary > for us to clarify the problem that each item has. > > I show following list the thing which I hit on: > - std.stream, I/O (replace, enhance) > - std.xml (replace?) > - std.json (replace?) > - std.datetime (replace, enhance) > - scope/RAII (replace, enhance) > - std.scoket / asio (replace) > - std.event (enhance) > - std.serialize (enhance) > - documents (enhance) > - std.process (enhance) > - std.path, std.file (enhance) > - pure (apply) > - nothrow (apply) > - @safe/@trusted/@system (apply) > - shared (enhance, bug fix) > - GC (enhance) > - std.container (enhance) > - opDollars (enhance, apply) > - and some voted bugs (bug fix) > (I only enumerate of the list at this stage, and omit the detailed > explanation.) > > Are there items else? > > -- > SHOO > > (2010/11/14 14:52), Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> We have several modules in Phobos which are supposedly going to be >> deprecated in >> favor of better implementations (std.stream, std.xml, std.json, etc). As I >> understand it, this is primarily because the code isn't being maintained, is >> poorly designed for D2 (possibly because it isn't range-centric or just >> hasn't >> been updated with D2-only features), and/or lacks a maintainer/champion. In >> addition to that, there's various types of functionality which should >> probably >> be in Phobos but haven't been done yet. >> >> The Phobos developers only have so much time on their hands, and some >> portion of >> this kind of work is going to need to be done by people who are not >> currently on >> the Phobos team. That, and we seem to be adopting the idea that the ideal >> situation is for each module to have a "champion" of sorts who is behind the >> module, working to fix bugs on it and make it better. >> >> So, I was wondering if what we should do is figure out what some of the >> modules >> are that we want in Phobos - and in particular the ones currently in Phobos >> which need to be overhauled - and then post on the main D list looking for >> people willing to take them on. We don't want to a flood of code that needs >> to be >> reviewed for inclusion in Phobos, but if we want to get a lot of this stuff >> done, >> we need more people working on it - particularly people who are really >> looking >> to focus on it and champion it. >> >> So, I'm suggesting that we identify the top priority module which aren't >> likely >> to be done by Phobos developers any time soon and see if we can get others in >> the D community to do them. In particular, it's a problem that we have >> several >> modules which we intend to replace. The longer that we wait, the more code >> that >> will be written using the old modules, and the more code which will break >> when >> they get replaced. >> >> - Jonathan M Davis > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos -- /Jacob Carlborg _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
