'exp' vs 'std'? Forked: Vote for std.process

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:27:11 +1000
Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 April 2013 00:04, Jesse Phillips <Jessekphillips+d at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 06:25:10 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >
> >> 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...
> >>

While I think you raise a very good point, I agree with the
possible solutions Vladimir suggested in the original thread: Either
add them straight to 'std' from the start and just mark it with a big
red "EXPERIMENTAL" or perhaps more accurately "NEW MODULE -
STILL SUBJECT TO CHANGE!", or make it super-easy to test such modules
when they're in the review queue (perhaps via DUB?). Actually, I'd like
to see *both*.

The "exp vs std" suggestion *could* work, but I think it his a
somewhat higher potential for unintended problems down the road.