'exp' vs 'std'? Forked: Vote for std.process

[Timothee Cour]

A)
what has been described so far doesn't take into account revamped
modules, only new modules. However revamping modules also needs to be
taken into consideration (there was a discussion before on whether we
should have std.process2, which was agreed to be bad).

Here's a suggestion that would work for both new and revamped modules:

put experimental/revamped modules during staging period under (to take
std.process example):

./phobos/std/process.d //current one
./phobos/experimental/std/process.d //new one, still called module std.process

now instead of having to modify D source files to change 'import
exp.process' into 'import std.process' as has been suggested by some,
here we would only need to change compiler flags:

rdmd $DFLAGS -I$phobos_root/experimental main.d  => uses
experimental/std/process.d if import std.process is mentioned

rdmd $DFLAGS main.d  => uses std/process.d if import std.process is mentioned

B)
To handle fine grained selection of the experimental new/revamped
modules, we can refine the preceding scheme with per-module
identifiers:

rdmd $DFLAGS -I$phobos_root/experimental -J$phobos_root

experimental/std/process.d:

module std.process;
version(experimental_std_process_version_latest)
  mixin(import("experimental/std/experimental_std_process_version_3.d"));
//latest revision
else version(...) //maybe some intermediate revision given by a number
else
  mixin(import("std/process.d").removeFirstLineContainingImportDecl);
//default one

C)
Furthermore, instead of version(AllowExperimental){} else pragma(msg,
"RED FLAG"); that was suggested, we can leverage UDA for more
flexibility:
the logic would enable behavior such as controlling whether to print
warnings depending on whether user code or library depends on
experimental feature.





On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:15:33 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic
> <andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/13, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:16:09 -0400, Kagamin <spam at here.lot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 17:27:58 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Add std.exp.module with the API as it will be WITHOUT warnings
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> exp.module?
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.
>>
>>
>> I'd rather we keep it under "std" to avoiding stealing a name that an
>> external library might already use (it's not stealing per se but it
>> might introduce conflicts).
>
>
> I'd like to take this opportunity to say I don't care what the name is :)
> That wasn't any part of my suggestion.  Whatever was decided as the "place
> to put experimental modules" is what I meant.
>
> -Steve