On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:22:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Forking from
http://forum.dlang.org/post/qsqfcayisriatreqt...@forum.dlang.org
Most relevant quote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:15:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
We put something in std.experimental when we can't imagine
what other work is to be done on the module. (Inevitably a
little more work is prompted by usage, which is the point of
it all.) We don't put in std.experimental stuff that has
already a known backlog of work to do.
This surprises me because during talks about std.experimental
before it was discussed as possible place to advertise Phobos
candidates without risking any API breakage. And now Andrei
(Davis also supports this point) speaks about it as pure
"staging" concept which should have same inclusion criteria as
Phobos mainstream.
This was also my understanding of how that discussion resolved:
std.experimental is a place for things we think belong in Phobos
to incubate and get wide, public exposure. There are arguments
that dub obviates this, but I don't think that has nearly the
visibility needed.
That is, "which of these logging libraries is the candidate for
Phobos, again?" Or, more generally, "which libraries are
candidates for Phobos, again? How can you tell? If this is a
candidate, why isn't it in the autotester? Do we file bugs on
dlang.org even though it's in the registry?" Add a generous
dollop of silence from people who reinvent the wheel because
they've never heard of Dub, and serve chilled. I'd be willing to
bet anything in the std packages has several orders of magnitude
more eyes acknowledging its existence.
By the way, when you say "staging" I think of the Linux kernel's
definition of staging [1] for driver and filesystem development.
It's just a bit confusing. :) On the other hand, I still think
their rules for staging have some merit as an example for Phobos
to ad{a,o}pt.
-Wyatt
[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/324279/
