Experimental Phobos modules?

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 08:43:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> Whether we want some kind of experimental set of modules in 
> Phobos which
> _could_ be reviewed, I don't know. I'm inclined to think that 
> that's a bad
> idea. However, it might be a good idea if we had a separate 
> project (akin to
> Boost perhaps) with a lower standard for inclusion and minimal 
> long term
> stability so that more modules could be tested and tried out 
> before going
> through the actual review process. It would also potentially 
> make it easier
> for programmers to take other people's code and make it Phobos 
> ready when the
> original programmers are willing to write it in the first place 
> but not got the
> extra mile to make it Phobos ready, as they could put into that 
> incubator
> project to be used, abused, and improved by others.
>
> Regardless, I think that we need to look at finding ways to 
> make sure that
> major inclusions to Phobos get more actual field testing before 
> being put into
> Phobos in their final form. The review process is great, but I 
> don't think that
> it's always enough to make sure that a module's API is really 
> going to work
> long term. And if we want long term stability, we need to make 
> sure that new
> modules are really ready to have their APIs essentially frozen 
> when they make
> it into Phobos proper (allowing further additions but avoiding 
> breaking
> compatibility with any changes that are made).
>

I think D isn't big enough to get that into another project. Many 
people wont use that just because you need a setup when they 
would if they don't need to, while knowing they use something 
that isn't casted in stone.

experimental seems the right name to me :
- It is long.
- It is explicit.