On Friday, 17 June 2016 at 07:16:20 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 17 June 2016 at 06:54:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 23:27:06 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
I do not think this approach will scale in the long run, no
matter who is given that role. Of course, I would be happy to
be proven wrong.
I think maybe the C++ approach is better. If you want
something into C++ std your best bet is to try to get it into
Boost first.
std.experimental should probably be our boost.
It could be, but "experimental" sends signals of not being
production ready. If it isn't ready for production it also won't
be tested to the same extent.
Anyway, having something like Boost with a different custodian
than Phobos, would allow people to vote with their feet. If a
library is popular it should be a candidate.
C++ has "experimental" for unstable APIs:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/experimental/gcd
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/experimental/to_array
