Should this work?

[Brad Anderson]

On Thursday, 9 January 2014 at 20:40:30 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:19:40PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2014-01-09 17:35, Marco Leise wrote:
>> 
>> >I Phobos should follow OpenGL in this regard and use a
>> >prefix like `etc` for useful but not finalized modules, so
>> >early adapters can try out new modules compare them with any
>> >existing API in Phobos where applicable (e.g. streams,
>> >json, ...) and report any issues. I have a feeling that right
>> >now most modules are tested by 2 people prior to the merge,
>> >because they spent a life in obscurity.
>> 
>> That has been suggested before and the counter argument is that
>> people will start using and complain when it's changed, even 
>> if it's
>> in an experimental. Someone here said that the javax. packages
>> originally was experimental packages to they continued to live 
>> in
>> the javax namespace to avoid breaking changes.
> [...]
>
> Maybe instead of calling it 'etc' we should outright call it
> 'experimental'. If you have code like:
>
> 	import experimental.myawesomemodule;
> 	...
>
> I doubt you'd object very much when you have to rename it to:
>
> 	import std.myawesomemodule;
> 	...
>
> since the word 'experimental' staring you in the face every 
> time you
> open up the file will be a constant nagging reminder that you're
> depending on something unstable, giving you motivation to want 
> to move
> it to something stable as soon as you can.
>
>
> T

I was of the opinion that phobos needed an experimental section 
for getting real world testing of proposed modules but these days 
I think we should just stick things up on dub (including modules 
proposed for inclusion in phobos).