std.experimental repo

Daniel N via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at
Sat Mar 25 10:10:44 PDT 2017

On Saturday, 25 March 2017 at 16:50:18 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 March 2017 at 14:20:53 UTC, Seb wrote:
>> So in short: as long as a library is in active development, 
>> it's its death to put it into the standard library.
> That could be different for std.experimental.*? Or does that 
> work only when development comes directly from the Foundation? 
> Should it be different?

That was kinda what I was hoping, there could be a 2nd 
bikeshedding/review before graduating out of experimental, but 
allowing the author to get some work done during the experimental 

> Nothing against having very useful and established libraries 
> also outside Phobos, if it's more agile. If Boost had to be 
> inside the C++ standard we would have never had Boost or C++11. 
> I like to think Phobos is less rigid than C++ standard but 
> still.

If there's 1 big library that's fine, but if you have to puzzle 
together 5 small ones...

On Saturday, 25 March 2017 at 10:28:36 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 March 2017 at 09:42:07 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
>> As a ndslice user, I long dreaded this day:
>> 2.074.0: "std.experimental.ndslice has been removed"
> Are you aware that ndslice is available at 
> right?

yes, thanks.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list