Case for std.experimental

David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Jul 30 08:24:21 PDT 2014


On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:21:12 UTC, Dragos Carp wrote:
>> Now that I see several comments here seeking for certain 
>> stability even in std.experimental and can understand why 
>> later exposure can be a good thing. That, however, makes me 
>> even more convinced that "experimental" is a terrible name for 
>> that package and we are using it purely as staging are instead.
>
> I think that if we rename std.experimental as std.stagging, we 
> can consider that  it has absolved from its own 
> expe\b\b\b\bstaging phase.
>
> Just now this will cause no code breakage, and hopefully it 
> will also avoid some confusions and discussions in the future.

As far as I recall, there was extensive bike-shedding about this 
a while back. The decision (which I support) was to go with 
std.experimental, as it makes it clear that there are no API 
stability guarantees and the module will eventually go away. 
Making it sound unstable was the entire point of going with that 
name over the alternatives.

Cheers,
David


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list