std.serialization: pre-voting review / discussion

[Kapps]

On Wednesday, 14 August 2013 at 14:34:58 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
> On 2013-08-14 16:15, ilya-stromberg wrote:
>
>> I think we should avoid mixins as much as it possible.
>> UDA @nonSerialized looks much better, so I think we should use 
>> it.
>> Of course, we can leave template NonSerialized(Fields...) for 
>> backwards
>> compatible with Orange and, maybe, deprecate it.
>
> Of course UDA's should be the primary use for this. The 
> question is should NonSerialized be included at all? Should it 
> be included and deprecated or should it just be included?

I don't think it should be included. The UDAs replace it nicely, 
and though std.serialization would be essentially Orange it's 
still a different library. Some breaking changes are to be 
expected, and in this case I think worth-while. Having multiple 
ways of specifying options such as non-serialized is confusing. 
If you had UDAs available to you from the start, would you have 
included the mixins? If not, why include them now? This is 
essentially a fresh start, one inside Phobos rather than a 
separate library.