Mars Drafting Library - Official community driven library

[Piotrek via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 14:40:17 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
>> The intention of creating draft modules would be the inclusion 
>> in Phobos.
>> In simplistic way, the following stages of development will be 
>> applied:
>>
>> 1. Proposal (DIP, NG discussion, DUB package showcase, local 
>> meet-up events etc)
>> 2. Draft module creation and development
>> 3  Approval for Phobos merge, i.e. "draft" -> "std"
>
> I really can't see the difference between `std.experimental` 
> and this. If `std.experimental` doesn't get used for this, 
> `std.experimental` will end up a marginalized "experiment" 
> itself. I think `std.experimental` runs the huge risk of not 
> being recognized as what it is - i.e. a shop for building 
> things (from scratch if necessary, IMO). If you're not worried 
> about the name "Mars", why are you worried about 
> `std.experimental`?

I initially thought about the "std.experimental", but came up to 
the conclusion that when modules are in drafting stage they 
shouldn't pollute the Phobos. Basically because the final 
standard is not defined.

A simple distinction can be seen as follows:
  draft - drafting
  std.experimental - piloting

The Drafting library can be omitted during DMD installation 
without any harm for Druntime and Phobos.

>> I briefly read the article and some parts are similar. However 
>> the difference is that Curiosity/Mars would form some kind of 
>> trinity with Druntime and Phobos. See also my answer to 
>> weaselcat's post 
>> (http://forum.dlang.org/post/mtqjtavxzjucixuycnlf@forum.dlang.org).
>>
>> Piotrek
>
> Yes, we're basically talking about the two categories I 
> mentioned to begin with. You're focusing on those libraries 
> which can be pre-approved as worthy of phobos. The way I figure 
> it, only Andrei and Walter can ultimately give pre-approval for 
> such libraries.

I don't treat Walter and Andrei as a blocking point. I think they 
will do anything is good for the language. Many time the D 
community initiated successful campaigns seconded by the key 
designers.


> But I think the second kind I mentioned -- high-quality 
> libraries which aren't suited for phobos -- also need official, 
> or at least prominent, recognition. It's really important for 
> people not to have to investigate every program listed on 
> code.lang.org in order to find high-quality existing code. I 
> would even argue that such recognition is more important than 
> the library you're proposing here (which already seems to exist 
> with `std.experimental`).

I truly agree that there are many valuable DUB packages needing 
the advertisement.
However this is out of the scope of the proposal.

Piotrek