On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 01:39:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 20:55:32 +0000
Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
I have discussed this with Andrei shortly after he has merged
PR
that adds `std.experimental` to Phobos. Looks like he actually
thinks about it as `std.staging` - place for almost complete
Phobos modules to bring more attention to them while still
being
able to make breaking API changes.
If that's the case, then I'd be inclined to argue that what
should go in
std.experimental is modules that past the Phobos review process
so that rather
than sticking them in std directly, they go in std.experimental
for a release
or two so that they get better battle-tested before actually
being put into
std, where APIs shouldn't be changing. So, rather than doing
anything to speed
up the development process, std.experimental is for making sure
that APIs are
solid before they get set in stone in Phobos proper.
- Jonathan m Davis
I feel like there needs to be some type of formal review. The
criteria can't be as strict for full inclusion into Phobos, but I
don't see it as a place for half implemented modules.
I've been thinking about it and do actually like the idea of
including dub projects with the release of Phobos. Projects we'd
like to move into Phobos and get reviewed. This keeps ownership
outside of Phobos and allows us to easily drop projects not
getting enough attention, and users of the library can obtain the
library from dub so it doesn't hurt as much. It does add to the
release process, so I say this should be our end goal and utilize
std.experimental as a placeholder for now.
