On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 14:40:17 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
The intention of creating draft modules would be the inclusion
in Phobos.
In simplistic way, the following stages of development will be
applied:
1. Proposal (DIP, NG discussion, DUB package showcase, local
meet-up events etc)
2. Draft module creation and development
3 Approval for Phobos merge, i.e. "draft" -> "std"
I really can't see the difference between `std.experimental`
and this. If `std.experimental` doesn't get used for this,
`std.experimental` will end up a marginalized "experiment"
itself. I think `std.experimental` runs the huge risk of not
being recognized as what it is - i.e. a shop for building
things (from scratch if necessary, IMO). If you're not worried
about the name "Mars", why are you worried about
`std.experimental`?
I initially thought about the "std.experimental", but came up to
the conclusion that when modules are in drafting stage they
shouldn't pollute the Phobos. Basically because the final
standard is not defined.
A simple distinction can be seen as follows:
draft - drafting
std.experimental - piloting
The Drafting library can be omitted during DMD installation
without any harm for Druntime and Phobos.
I briefly read the article and some parts are similar. However
the difference is that Curiosity/Mars would form some kind of
trinity with Druntime and Phobos. See also my answer to
weaselcat's post
(http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]).
Piotrek
Yes, we're basically talking about the two categories I
mentioned to begin with. You're focusing on those libraries
which can be pre-approved as worthy of phobos. The way I figure
it, only Andrei and Walter can ultimately give pre-approval for
such libraries.
I don't treat Walter and Andrei as a blocking point. I think they
will do anything is good for the language. Many time the D
community initiated successful campaigns seconded by the key
designers.
But I think the second kind I mentioned -- high-quality
libraries which aren't suited for phobos -- also need official,
or at least prominent, recognition. It's really important for
people not to have to investigate every program listed on
code.lang.org in order to find high-quality existing code. I
would even argue that such recognition is more important than
the library you're proposing here (which already seems to exist
with `std.experimental`).
I truly agree that there are many valuable DUB packages needing
the advertisement.
However this is out of the scope of the proposal.
Piotrek
