On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 00:28:51 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
We have examples from the past when additions that seemed
obvious and sensible needed a few tweaks before stabilization.
Could you list them please.
I do not like the idea.
1. Whenever I look into "learn" I get the feeling people do not
search the phobos docs. This can have many reasons, but I think
adding a second place to search (std.range,
std.experimental.range) will exacerbate this situation.
2. The amount of issues brought to my attention with
std.experimental.logger is quite small. Again multiple
possibilities (is anyone actually using the logger?), but still
the amount of shakedown through experimental is not that big.
3. Every move of code from experimental to stable will require
user interaction. I thought we were trying to not break old code
nowadays.
4. Apis break from time to time. Just look at the rangification
process. IMO no process will change that. This process will only
lead to more work.
Only ranting without offering some sort of solution does not
stand good with me.
Therefore, I would say we should put more emphasis on testing.
For instance, if you look at the mentioned PR, you see that
pad(Left,Right) is not once tested with any of the range
functions already included in phobos. Does it work with itoa, I
don't know.
I'm not saying every snippet of phobos should be combined/tested
against every other snippet, but enough combinations should be
tested that the reviews get the feeling that the api fits
reasonable into phobos.
"SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTING ON"
Watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPoZWnYIcP4 again
strengthen my believe that testing with random input data has its
merits. So please, can somebody take a look at
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2995
"SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTING OFF"
