Case for std.experimental

[jollie via Digitalmars-d]

"Dicebot" <public at dicebot.lv> Wrote in message:

> What keeps bothering me is this: imagine something has not passed 
> vote for std.experimental inclusion. That means that some changes 
> will happen, one more voting and it will eventually get there one 
> release later.
> 
> And if has passed the vote, effectively the same stuff happens - 
> changes are done, staging period prolonged and we get to the very 
> same point. Only difference is that earlier versions of the 
> module don't get wider user exposure.
> 
> Now that I see several comments here seeking for certain 
> stability even in std.experimental and can understand why later 
> exposure can be a good thing. That, however, makes me even more 
> convinced that "experimental" is a terrible name for that package 
> and we are using it purely as staging are instead.
> 

std.purgatory