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 <[email protected]> To: Discuss the phobos library for D <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
