On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:18:30 -0400, Manu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 April 2013 02:07, Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:27:11 -0400, Manu <[email protected]> wrote:
I maintain the position that it needs at least a year in the real world
before you can truly be confident in it. New things shouldn't be barred
from post-release tuning on account of "omg it's a breaking change!".
I hate the 'omg it's a breaking change!' mentality as well. This is an
UNRELEASED product.
I also hate the idea of creating another javax.
I don't understand this problem? Why is there a problem moving it when
it's
ready?
It's already understood to be experimental, and the user has already
accepted the contract that changes can be made (including moving it to
std).
Intentions don't always equal reality. If enough people make a stink, it
could result in exp being the "official" release of some modules. See
standard location of Java's xml library.
I like the pragma idea because it does not stop compilation, serves as an
adequate warning that things are in flux, and turning off the pragma
breaks no code whatsoever. It's basically a warning that your code may
break. But if the API is stable, it will be fine, and no changes are
needed.
With the exp version, you either keep exp.module around forever as a
public link to the std.module, or you force people's code to break even
though no API has changed.
-Steve
