Case for std.experimental

[Dragos Carp via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:24:22 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:21:12 UTC, Dragos Carp wrote:
>
> As far as I recall, there was extensive bike-shedding about 
> this a while back. The decision (which I support) was to go 
> with std.experimental,

Sorry, probably this was before I started following the forum 
discussions.

> as it makes it clear that there are no API stability guarantees

Andrei made the point that API should be stable with unforeseen 
exceptions and I support this.

> and the module will eventually go away.

Hopefully the module will get one level upper in std. and not go 
away.

> Making it sound unstable was the entire point of going with 
> that name over the alternatives.

As in this thread, we see that "empty" std.experimental already 
generates unnecessary discussions.

In my opinion, DUB is the right place (playground) for 
experiments.