On 9/9/10 16:47 CDT, Steve Schveighoffer wrote:
Alternatively, we can have std.stopwatch not appear in the docs until we are certain of its location.
Then why add it? Most surely there won't be a module std.stopwatch.
I think not including it is not a good idea. Going by that philosophy, we will have to wait until all date/time stuff is done before it's included.
I'm talking about a minor release - a month.
Another alternative is to call it std.xstopwatch until it's not experimental anymore. At least it will be easy to search/replace later. Basically what we need is a mechanism to convey to the user that things aren't set in stone for stopwatch. Although are we making that guarantee anywhere else? I think through the last few releases, phobos has had breaking changes (input ranges' save function comes to mind).
std.stopwatch is a simple artifact with a simple charter. I don't think we need to overengineer this.
Andrei _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
