[phobos] next release

[Steve Schveighoffer]

Alternatively, we can have std.stopwatch not appear in the docs until we are 
certain of its location.

I think not including it is not a good idea.  Going by that philosophy, we will 
have to wait until all date/time stuff is done before it's included.

Another alternative is to call it std.xstopwatch until it's not experimental 
anymore.  At least it will be easy to search/replace later.

Basically what we need is a mechanism to convey to the user that things aren't 
set in stone for stopwatch.  Although are we making that guarantee anywhere 
else?  I think through the last few releases, phobos has had breaking changes 
(input ranges' save function comes to mind).

-Steve



----- Original Message ----
From: Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei at erdani.com>
To: Discuss the phobos library for D <phobos at puremagic.com>
Sent: Thu, September 9, 2010 5:38:15 PM
Subject: Re: [phobos] next release

On 9/9/10 16:27 CDT, Steve Schveighoffer wrote:
> Could we not put a warning in std.stopwatch like:
>
> "warning, std.stopwatch is experimental, and may change API/module name"

No please.

> I personally think std.datetime makes the most sense (with everything).  But
> clearly, an 11th hour decision without consensus or a complete implementation
> may not be the best idea.  Locking ourselves into something without knowing 
>what
> it's going to look like doesn't make any sense to me.

Then let's have std.stopwatch wait one more release cycle.


Andrei
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
phobos at puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos