std.experimental – DConf?

[ponce via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 29 May 2014 at 19:41:48 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 May 2014 at 19:15:29 UTC, ponce wrote:
>>
>> Now you have another problem, how do you know that something 
>> "looks good" from a design point of view for inclusion in 
>> std.experimental? Reviews like for Phobos inclusion? 
>> Especially with no users at this point.
>>
> It's an experiment; simple consensus (if that!) should be 
> sufficient to try it out.  Get it out there, let people kick it 
> around a little, find the use cases that make it turn out to 
> actually suck.  If it feels as nice in practice as it looks 
> like it will, great!  If not, it gets changed until it does or 
> it goes back to the drawing board.
>
>> On what criterion do you filter applicants for 
>> std.experimental then?
>
> "Some people think this looks pretty good and is fit for 
> inclusion in Phobos; but others are on the fence and we don't 
> know for sure, so we need to run an experiment to find out."
>
> -Wyatt

OK I understand the intent, good intentions for sure, now at a 
practical level:
- if relying on a DUB package, you do not depend on the compiler 
release.
- by using an std.experimental you now require a particular 
compiler for your users (that means library writers won't use it 
to avoid breakind their users code).