On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 21:51:03 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 19:50:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
If it takes just as much effort to get it into
std.experimental as it
would take to get into std directly, I don't see the point of
the
additional hassle introduced by std.experimental.
T
I agree - be shameless with what you put in std.experimental.
Otherwise it has no purpose. Really, the whole point of such a
package is so you can safely *ignore* all the trolls and
naysayers on reddit, newsgroups, slashdot, etc... so that you
can work on the libraries. There should be no shame whatsoever
in breaking code that uses std.experimental, nor any pretense
that it's anything but a playground for working out kinks.
std.experimental is a warehouse where things are tried and
scrapped regularly. The only reason it exists is to say that
these particular *kinds* of tasks are "preapproved" for phobos.
It says *nothing* about whether the current implementation will
be here next month or not. Everything in std.experimental is
"still in the shop", subject to complete and instantaneous
recall at any time.
Otherwise, ask yourself, what's the point of std.experimental
at all? You just like giving people 13 extra characters to type
when you make guarantees?
+1, I'd love to see more experimental possibly-later approved
modules in std.experimental.
