std.experimental – DConf?

[David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 05:20:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Also please don't analyze this to death. It's meant to reduce 
> friction, not increase this.

I'm not sure whether your comment was just targeted at the naming 
discussions, but in general, I find it very valid to discuss the 
details of the proposal, especially the interaction with package 
management.

The benefits of having std.experimental over just bundling dub 
with DMD must be clear and the separation well-defined. 
Otherwise, this change will only increase friction instead.

Personally, I rather like the idea of std.experimental being a 
staging area for libraries that already passed some initial round 
of review (be it in the form of a dub package or otherwise) to 
get more widespread attention before being "set in stone". We 
desperately need something like this, as the review process has 
turned out to be to rigid for fear of including suboptimal APIs, 
yet at the same time has failed to catch several design problems 
as only few reviewers typically made an effort to actually use 
the code.

I, however, don't think that std.experimental is a good way to 
gather initial feedback for a module, as the compiler release 
cycle is just too inflexible for that.

David