Case for std.experimental

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

Forking from 
http://forum.dlang.org/post/qsqfcayisriatreqtvcm@forum.dlang.org

Most relevant quote:

On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:15:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> We put something in std.experimental when we can't imagine what 
> other work is to be done on the module. (Inevitably a little 
> more work is prompted by usage, which is the point of it all.) 
> We don't put in std.experimental stuff that has already a known 
> backlog of work to do.

This surprises me because during talks about std.experimental 
before it was discussed as possible place to advertise Phobos 
candidates without risking any API breakage. And now Andrei 
(Davis also supports this point) speaks about it as pure 
"staging" concept which should have same inclusion criteria as 
Phobos mainstream.

Reason why I find this strange is because it invalidates main 
argument in favor of std.experimental over something like dub 
package - making it easier to wider user case to try the proposal 
and provide API feedback. All it does with such restrictions is 
delaying stabilization point for one release in case something 
totally unforeseen comes out.

I wonder what are other opinions.