Looking at http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue there are 4 proposals that are marked as "Ready for review" or "Ready for comments". I can proceed with any of those any time proposal author sends me an e-mail acknowledging his attention.

Walter Bright, Idan Arye, Paul D. Anderson, Michael Rynn - I am speaking about you ;)

Also if there is something ready but not in queue - don't hesitate about it.

On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 19:52:59 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Looking at http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue there are 4 proposals that are marked as "Ready for review" or "Ready for comments". I can proceed with any of those any time proposal author sends me an e-mail acknowledging his attention.
>
> Walter Bright, Idan Arye, Paul D. Anderson, Michael Rynn - I am speaking about you ;)
>
> Also if there is something ready but not in queue - don't hesitate about it.

I would prefer that you start with std.xml2. XML is too damn common for D to not have a proper XML module in the standard library.

std.idioms can wait. It's ready as far as I care - it's a little bit thin(only two idioms), but the idea was that once it get accepted, other people can add their idioms there. But like I said - XML should get priority.

On Saturday, February 01, 2014 23:54:06 Idan Arye wrote:
> On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 19:52:59 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> > Looking at http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue there are 4 proposals that are marked as "Ready for review" or "Ready for comments". I can proceed with any of those any time proposal author sends me an e-mail acknowledging his attention.
> > 
> > Walter Bright, Idan Arye, Paul D. Anderson, Michael Rynn - I am speaking about you ;)
> > 
> > Also if there is something ready but not in queue - don't hesitate about it.
> 
> I would prefer that you start with std.xml2. XML is too damn common for D to not have a proper XML module in the standard library.
> 
> std.idioms can wait. It's ready as far as I care - it's a little bit thin(only two idioms), but the idea was that once it get accepted, other people can add their idioms there. But like I said - XML should get priority.

I believe that the last time that Michael Rynn posted in the newsgroup was towards the beginning of 2012, and I don't think that he posted very many times before that, so I question that his proposal is ever going to go anywhere, even if it's completed and fantastic. He doesn't look like he's active enough to even see this call for review candidates let alone actually active enough to go through the review process.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 19:52:59 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Looking at http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue there are 4 proposals that are marked as "Ready for review" or "Ready for comments". I can proceed with any of those any time proposal author sends me an e-mail acknowledging his attention.
>
> Walter Bright, Idan Arye, Paul D. Anderson, Michael Rynn - I am speaking about you ;)
>
> Also if there is something ready but not in queue - don't hesitate about it.

Is this a good practice to give name: std.xml2 with digit at the end? Maybe it would be better to name it's simply std.xml ? And for prevent conflict rename old realization as std.xml.old ?

Also what what is the final decision about using std.unicode instead of std.uni? The first one is much more logical, than short variant.

On Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 01:49:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I believe that the last time that Michael Rynn posted in the newsgroup was
> towards the beginning of 2012, and I don't think that he posted very many
> times before that, so I question that his proposal is ever going to go
> anywhere, even if it's completed and fantastic. He doesn't look like he's
> active enough to even see this call for review candidates let alone actually
> active enough to go through the review process.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Yup, I am going to transfer those entries into "On hold / Awaiting champion" status if authors won't express any interest during few next reviews.

Anyway, Brian has told me in IRC that his new (now generic) std.lexer is ready for initial review / discussion, so I'll go with it for now.

Idan, std.idioms can be next - there is no point in waiting for authors of other proposal to re-appear, queue is almost empty in practice.

On 02/02/2014 01:35, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

>
> I believe that the last time that Michael Rynn posted in the newsgroup was
> towards the beginning of 2012, and I don't think that he posted very many
> times before that, so I question that his proposal is ever going to go
> anywhere, even if it's completed and fantastic. He doesn't look like he's
> active enough to even see this call for review candidates let alone actually
> active enough to go through the review process.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>


xmlp was looking pretty good, but the last change made to the source was in April last year, so I have to guess that Michael has abandoned it :-(

On Monday, 3 February 2014 at 10:16:50 UTC, Richard Webb wrote:
> xmlp was looking pretty good, but the last change made to the source was in April last year, so I have to guess that Michael has abandoned it :-(

As far as I can see Michael code is Boost licensed so anyone can fork it and continiue as new champion.

On 2/1/2014 10:52 PM, Suliman wrote:
> Is this a good practice to give name: std.xml2 with digit at the end? Maybe it
> would be better to name it's simply std.xml ?

I think the 2 postfix makes it abundantly clear it's a reboot without breaking existing code.


> And for prevent conflict rename old realization as std.xml.old ?

That breaks existing code, something we should avoid as much as practical.

Am 12.02.2014 23:05, schrieb Walter Bright:
> On 2/1/2014 10:52 PM, Suliman wrote:
>> Is this a good practice to give name: std.xml2 with digit at the end?
>> Maybe it
>> would be better to name it's simply std.xml ?
>
> I think the 2 postfix makes it abundantly clear it's a reboot without
> breaking existing code.
>
>
>> And for prevent conflict rename old realization as std.xml.old ?
>
> That breaks existing code, something we should avoid as much as practical.
>

Don't want to start this discussion again, but there is a possibility to kill two birds with one stone here by naming it std.data.xml instead. The same would later go for std.data.json. Any future formats (as well as std.csv) could then also go to the std.data package and not clutter up the top level package further.

On 2/12/2014 2:30 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Don't want to start this discussion again, but there is a possibility to kill
> two birds with one stone here by naming it std.data.xml instead. The same would
> later go for std.data.json. Any future formats (as well as std.csv) could then
> also go to the std.data package and not clutter up the top level package further.

That works, too.