Vote for std.process

[Paulo Pinto]

On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 06:25:10 UTC, Manu wrote:
> Sorry to derail the topic, but I'd just like to raise a major 
> gripe I've
> had with introducing anything into phobos recently.
>
> I see this pattern where something is designed, discussed, and 
> then voted
> into phobos. At this time the design looks good on paper, but 
> there is very
> little practical experience using the library.
> The problem then is, once accepted, people start using it, and 
> at some
> point some issues are found, or ideas for improvement are made 
> based on
> user experience, but the module can no longer be touched due to 
> the general
> phobia of making breaking changes...
>
> Can I suggest that ALL new modules should be added to exp. 
> rather than
> std.? Here they will stay for at least 1 year, and while they 
> live in exp,
> it is understood that they are still in an experimental 
> introductory phase.
> Users who choose to use modules in exp are accepting that the 
> API may
> receive changes, and consequently, accepting the responsibility 
> to update
> their code (and not complain about it breaking their program), 
> should the
> library be amended in its introductory phase.
> At some time later when the module has been used in a decent 
> amount of
> software, and the API has stabilised, it can then be moved to 
> std. This
> move is obviously a breaking change its self, but anyone who 
> has agrees to
> import exp modules has already accepted the responsibility to 
> update their
> code as such.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On 12 April 2013 16:12, Nick Sabalausky 
> <SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com
>> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:46:51 +0200
>> "Jesse Phillips" <Jessekphillips+d at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It is that time, If you would like to see the proposed
>> > std.process include into Phobos please vote yes. If one 
>> > condition
>> > must be met specify under what condition, otherwise vote no.
>> >
>>
>> Yes


Fully agree