Case for std.experimental

[David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 18:00:59 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 17:44:06 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> wrote:
>> No! The point here is we don't offer the guarantees. We just 
>> don't want std.experimental to devolve into "anything goes" 
>> territory. If a library has known significant work ahead of 
>> it, we shouldn't put it in std.experimental. -- Andrei
>
> Ok, I will keep those rules in mind for future reviews / voting 
> even if I don't understand their merit :)

My view on the purpose of std.experimental notwithstanding, maybe 
we should discuss the meaning of the _vote_: What about making 
the vote simply about whether the module is believed to be a) of 
enough importance to be in Phobos by the wider community, and b) 
close enough to the mark in terms of design and implementation 
that a solid result is reachable in the near future? A positive 
vote would then be a mandate for the contributor and the Phobos 
committers/reviewers to work on ironing out the remaining kinks 
to make the package suitable for shipping with the standard 
library. In other words, the vote would effectively put the pull 
request for the addition on a level with all the others that 
contain no or only minor changes to the public API.

Cheers,
David