std.experimental – DConf?

Jesse Phillips via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri May 30 11:49:27 PDT 2014


On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 01:39:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2014 20:55:32 +0000
> Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> I have discussed this with Andrei shortly after he has merged 
>> PR
>> that adds `std.experimental` to Phobos. Looks like he actually
>> thinks about it as `std.staging` - place for almost complete
>> Phobos modules to bring more attention to them while still 
>> being
>> able to make breaking API changes.
>
> If that's the case, then I'd be inclined to argue that what 
> should go in
> std.experimental is modules that past the Phobos review process 
> so that rather
> than sticking them in std directly, they go in std.experimental 
> for a release
> or two so that they get better battle-tested before actually 
> being put into
> std, where APIs shouldn't be changing. So, rather than doing 
> anything to speed
> up the development process, std.experimental is for making sure 
> that APIs are
> solid before they get set in stone in Phobos proper.
>
> - Jonathan m Davis

I feel like there needs to be some type of formal review. The 
criteria can't be as strict for full inclusion into Phobos, but I 
don't see it as a place for half implemented modules.

I've been thinking about it and do actually like the idea of 
including dub projects with the release of Phobos. Projects we'd 
like to move into Phobos and get reviewed. This keeps ownership 
outside of Phobos and allows us to easily drop projects not 
getting enough attention, and users of the library can obtain the 
library from dub so it doesn't hurt as much. It does add to the 
release process, so I say this should be our end goal and utilize 
std.experimental as a placeholder for now.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list