Case for std.experimental

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/29/14, 10:27 AM, safety0ff wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:22:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> Forking from
>> http://forum.dlang.org/post/qsqfcayisriatreqtvcm@forum.dlang.org
>>
>> Most relevant quote:
>>
>
> Personally, I think this following quote is the more compelling argument
> for that particular case:
>
> 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.

I'd just want to have a simple litmus test that prevents 
std.experimental from becoming a dumping ground of unfinished work. 
Consider:

"Folks, here's std.experimental.acme. I think it's usable and fairly 
stable but I'm sure I didn't think of all possible issues and use cases. 
Documentation could be also improved."

vs

"Folks, here's std.experimental.acme. The entire user-facing API is sure 
to change and it doesn't pass what some deem to be basic acceptance 
terms. Try it, but you can be sure you'll need to overhaul all use of it 
when it's done."


Andrei