[phobos] We desperately need to state the stability of each module in Phobos

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

I think that's a good idea. I've also talked to Walter about 
implementing deprecated("string argument"), which would go a long way 
towards establishing a systematic evolution strategy.

Andrei

On 11/16/10 6:45 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
> I suggest that in the ddoc at the top of each module, we add a section
> named something like "Stability:" or "Development Status:"
> This section can state anything from "Highly experimental, subject to
> change without notice" to "stable, non-breaking changes only"
> to "scheduled for deprecation, will be marked as deprecated in
> DMD2.060 and removed in DMD 2.070. Use std.newstuff instead.".
> If we do this, we can discourage users from relying too much on
> unstable parts of Phobos.
> (Ie, if somebody uses something marked as highly unstable, and their
> code breaks, it's their problem. If it was marked as stable and it
> breaks, it's our problem).
>
> The current, rather ridiculous situation, is that we have users
> assuming that everything is equally stable (stifling Phobos
> development) or assuming that everything is equally unstable (making
> serious use of D2 impossible).
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos