Make all new symbols go through std.experimental?

[Robert burner Schadek via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 00:28:51 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> We have examples from the past when additions that seemed 
> obvious and sensible needed a few tweaks before stabilization.
Could you list them please.


I do not like the idea.

1. Whenever I look into "learn" I get the feeling people do not 
search the phobos docs. This can have many reasons, but I think 
adding a second place to search (std.range, 
std.experimental.range) will exacerbate this situation.

2. The amount of issues brought to my attention with 
std.experimental.logger is quite small. Again multiple 
possibilities (is anyone actually using the logger?), but still 
the amount of shakedown through experimental is not that big.

3. Every move of code from experimental to stable will require 
user interaction. I thought we were trying to not break old code 
nowadays.

4. Apis break from time to time. Just look at the rangification 
process. IMO no process will change that. This process will only 
lead to more work.

Only ranting without offering some sort of solution does not 
stand good with me.

Therefore, I would say we should put more emphasis on testing. 
For instance, if you look at the mentioned PR, you see that 
pad(Left,Right) is not once tested with any of the range 
functions already included in phobos. Does it work with itoa, I 
don't know.
I'm not saying every snippet of phobos should be combined/tested 
against every other snippet, but enough combinations should be 
tested that the reviews get the feeling that the api fits 
reasonable into phobos.

"SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTING ON"

Watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPoZWnYIcP4 again 
strengthen my believe that testing with random input data has its 
merits. So please, can somebody take a look at 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2995

"SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTING OFF"