std.experimental – DConf?

[ponce via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 29 May 2014 at 16:53:53 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 
via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 29/05/14 18:22, ponce via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Is it really fast moving when you have to wait for compiler 
>> releases? I don't
>> think so.
>
> Fair point.  What I was really trying to say is, that if 
> something looks good from a design point of view, that getting 
> it straight into std.experimental is probably a much more 
> effective way of getting it out there and battle tested than 
> having it on code.dlang.org, because there will most likely be 
> orders of magnitude difference in user takeup between modules 
> in each.

Now you have another problem, how do you know that something 
"looks good" from a design point of view for inclusion in 
std.experimental? Reviews like for Phobos inclusion? Especially 
with no users at this point.

>
>> I also believe there is a positive correlation between "being 
>> popular on
>> code.dlang.org" and "being useful and with a promising design".
>
> Indeed.  I'm not arguing against popularity on code.dlang.org 
> being a consideration for potential std.experimental modules, 
> I'm just arguing against it being a requirement.

On what criterion do you filter applicants for std.experimental 
then?