Case for std.experimental

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 22:44:38 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> Ok, I will keep those rules in mind for future reviews / 
>> voting even if I don't understand their merit :)
>
> My view on the purpose of std.experimental notwithstanding, 
> maybe we should discuss the meaning of the _vote_: What about 
> making the vote simply about whether the module is believed to 
> be a) of enough importance to be in Phobos by the wider 
> community, and b) close enough to the mark in terms of design 
> and implementation that a solid result is reachable in the near 
> future?

(b) is a bit too vague. With something like std.logger full 
rewrite of API can be done in quite a small time being thus 
"reachable in the near future" :) Effectively it implies that 
Phobos reviewers "know better" when it comes to exposed API and 
this is something I disagree with (I am one of those reviewers 
after all and I won't trust myself). Voting is an opportunity to 
a future users to tell "this API looks so bad I'd better write 
one of my own than go with it".

At the same time minor glitches and overall Phobos style 
compatibility has not been traditionally considered a voting 
blocker so far so it already partially works that way - going 
through normal PR review process is still expected.