Proof of concept for v2 - NO duplication, NO `static if` hell, NO difficulty with interoperability

[Robert burner Schadek]

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 16:11:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
>> Destroyed!
>
> I agree with most of your points and definitely love the 
> enthusiasm. But it seems to me you are looking at a one-off 
> revolution and what we must define is a reproducible process. 
> One does not exclude the other.

Not it all, std2 sounds to me like std.experimental just with a 
different name.

For many of the changes you proposed of these posts, and years in 
general, I agree
with you or am not ashamed I don't know enough to make any 
contribution, and by
experience trust your decision.

I disagree on the reproducible process.
I think it is a trap.
IMO no breaking change is the same, therefore no reproducible 
process exists.

Removing std.string.soundex is different than killing 
auto-decoding.
I run in this trap, myself sooooo often.
"If I only had tool X, which takes me 1 month to build, task Y 
would be so simple and I have use it so often"
Or I can duck tape it right now, and the thing I want to be build 
is out of commission before the duck-tape fails.

Worse still, they are different but maybe in a completely 
different way.
For instance, how often is popFront called on a string.
Searching for soundex in D files on github is a lot easier, not 
perfect, but with a deprecation cycle, likely not a problem.

Again, I'm trying to say, that the D compiler as a library thing 
should be able to tell me how many cases of auto-decoding are 
there.

As we don't have that right now we could do something as shown 
here https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/8309/files#r741295406
and build all of code.dlang with the next dmd/phobos release and 
see how often that shows up.
Summit PR's to fix.
After the deprecation cycle we get D 102.0.0 or so and move on.