On 10 June 2014 07:26, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 14:23:59 -0700 > Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 6/9/14, 2:15 PM, Dejan Lekic wrote: > >> > I am more for "stdx", which is what some developers already use as >> > package name for experimental stuff. >> >> The way I see it is instead of explaining "stdx stands for the >> experimental part of std" I'd rather use std.experimental which >> explains itself. >> >> We added "immutable" after having explained to a million people >> "invariant in this context means immutable". > > That and the fact that we'd like to avoid the javax disaster. std.experimental > _should_ be annoyingly long and obvious. We want people to use it, but it > needs to be clear that it's temporary and _experimental_ until it actually > ends up in std. >
I agree all the way with std.experimental as the package name. Though I might throw in an alternative argument to stdx and instead promote unsafe.* or std.unsafe. ;-)
