Case for std.experimental

[jollie via Digitalmars-d]

"Dicebot" <public at dicebot.lv> Wrote in message:
> On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:35:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> wrote:
>> 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."
> 
> What keeps bothering me is this: imagine something has not passed 
> vote for std.experimental inclusion. That means that some changes 
> will happen, one more voting and it will eventually get there one 
> release later.
> 
> And if has passed the vote, effectively the same stuff happens - 
> changes are done, staging period prolonged and we get to the very 
> same point. Only difference is that earlier versions of the 
> module don't get wider user exposure.
> 
> 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.
> 


--