We need to enhance the standard library!

[Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 07:43:02 +0000, Jack Stouffer wrote:

> On Wednesday, 7 September 2016 at 19:01:23 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
>> Almost every "standard" evolves (e.g. USB, 3GPP, etc) and are subject
>> to change in subsequent releases. Stopping the progress is not a case
>> in good standardization process.
> 
> When I say "a good candidate for standardization", what I mean is a
> standardization of an API and module design, not a standardization in
> the traditional sense.
> 
> It doesn't matter that a standard like HTTP2 will have a new version
> (e.g. 2.1), what matters is the way in which the programmer interacts
> with it and how that API is designed. If there's no clear answer, e.g.
> urllib2 vs. requests, then that probably shouldn't be included in the
> standard library. Continuing with the urllib2 example, how many people
> do you suppose use urllib2 over requests, which is the most popular
> Python library by far? Despite this, the Python team is stuck
> maintaining urllib2.

Your example shows that hasty API design can be undesirable. Nobody's 
objecting to that.

The current pattern in D is:

* propose a module
* get feedback on the newsgroup
* implement it and put it on dub in a std.experimental namespace
* get feedback from people actually using your work
* make PR
* get feedback from people who already maintain Phobos
* it's now in Phobos

This pattern was/is being followed for, if I recall, ndslice, checkedint, 
xml2, and logging. Possibly a couple others.

Do you think that process is insufficient? Or do you think that it's not 
useful to push these libraries into Phobos?