Case for std.experimental

[safety0ff via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:22:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Forking from 
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/qsqfcayisriatreqtvcm@forum.dlang.org
>
> Most relevant quote:
>

Personally, I think this following quote is the more compelling 
argument for that particular case:

On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:15:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
>
> We put something in std.experimental when we can't imagine what 
> other work is to be done on the module. (Inevitably a little 
> more work is prompted by usage, which is the point of it all.) 
> We don't put in std.experimental stuff that has already a known 
> backlog of work to do.
>