On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:32:44 -0400, bearophile wrote: > Walter: > >> I have thought in the past about putting such modules into another >> package, call it "foo" for lack of a better name, and put it in the dmd >> distribution. If the package pans out in real life, then move it to >> std. So, yes, I think your idea is a good one. > > It's a nice idea. Possible names: "std.experimental", "std.unstable" or > "std.minefield" :-)
Personally I like the experimental/incubator idea (though it had better not get a 'std' prefix!). I'm not sure the D community is large enough to support a more formal review process (yet). > In Python there is kind of built-in namespace named "future" that you > import as module, it contains even new basic language features in > testing (like integer division!). I'd like the same in D2 too, for > experimental features. I don't see the connection. '__future__' in Python isn't for experimental features, nor is it for introducing stdlib changes. It's a way to 'import' language features which become standard in later releases. For example, as you know, the 'print' statement becomes a function in Python 3.0, but you can disable the print statement in Python 2.6+ via 'from __future__ import print_function'. Graham
