Case for std.experimental

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/30/14, 8:56 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:24:22 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> The decision (which I support) was to go with std.experimental, as it
>> makes it clear that there are no API stability guarantees
>
> ..and at the same time you do want to require the very same stability
> guarantees :)

No! The point here is we don't offer the guarantees. We just don't want 
std.experimental to devolve into "anything goes" territory. If a library 
has known significant work ahead of it, we shouldn't put it in 
std.experimental. -- Andrei