521 days, 22 hours, 7 minutes and 52 seconds...

[weaselcat via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 21:51:03 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
> On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 19:50:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> If it takes just as much effort to get it into 
>> std.experimental as it
>> would take to get into std directly, I don't see the point of 
>> the
>> additional hassle introduced by std.experimental.
>>
>>
>> T
>
> I agree - be shameless with what you put in std.experimental. 
> Otherwise it has no purpose. Really, the whole point of such a 
> package is so you can safely *ignore* all the trolls and 
> naysayers on reddit, newsgroups, slashdot, etc... so that you 
> can work on the libraries. There should be no shame whatsoever 
> in breaking code that uses std.experimental, nor any pretense 
> that it's anything but a playground for working out kinks. 
> std.experimental is a warehouse where things are tried and 
> scrapped regularly. The only reason it exists is to say that 
> these particular *kinds* of tasks are "preapproved" for phobos. 
> It says *nothing* about whether the current implementation will 
> be here next month or not. Everything in std.experimental is 
> "still in the shop", subject to complete and instantaneous 
> recall at any time.
>
> Otherwise, ask yourself, what's the point of std.experimental 
> at all? You just like giving people 13 extra characters to type 
> when you make guarantees?

+1, I'd love to see more experimental possibly-later approved 
modules in std.experimental.