an alpha aLib for Resript?

[hyperpolymath]

Hi ReScript team,

I am new on the developer side but I would like to propose a small, low-risk experiment that can make a real difference for library authors and application developers without pulling attention away from compiler priorities.
Summary

I am proposing an alpha “aLib-for-ReScript” repository that acts as a namespaced proving ground + adapter layer:

Common layer: utilities/patterns that work cleanly under both ReScript and Melange constraints.
Specific layer: ReScript-centric ergonomics that are intentionally not “common”.
Compat layer: explicit conversions / escape hatches to and from upstream stdlib types and runtime modules.
Optional Proven entrypoints: opt-in runtime validation at risky boundaries (FFI / JSON / untyped inputs), designed to be removable and dev-friendly.

This is not a replacement standard library. It is an incubator and a safety harness: experiments are namespaced, upstream-first, and deletable.
“No tears” contract (explicit non-goals)

Not “the new stdlib”
Not a fork of upstream stdlibs
Not a mandate for compiler direction or roadmap
Not a mass migration plan

Design constraints:

Namespacing only (e.g. Aggregate.* / Alib.*) — no shadowing Option, Result, Array, etc.
Per-file adoption — you can try one module in one file and stop anytime.
Upstream-first — upstream remains the source of truth.
Deletion-friendly — anything that lands upstream gets removed here; adapters remain only where needed.

Why now

A lot of pain points in real projects sit at the boundaries:

externals + defaults/optionals,
untyped JSON and runtime data,
small cross-target differences (ReScript vs Melange),
and “how should I publish a ReScript library safely?”

This repo would let us:

provide safe boundary patterns now,
gather evidence of what’s valuable,
and (only if wanted) propose narrow upstream improvements later.

Relationship to aggregate-library

I also maintain aggregate-library, which is explicitly a methods + stress-test repo showing the approach under extreme diversity. It’s not the ReScript implementation and not a dependency requirement.

The ReScript-facing repo is the practical application: Common + Specific split, adapters, tests, and optional validation at boundaries.
Graduation / retirement policy

Each module is either:

Experiment (fast iteration, namespaced)
Stable (semver + tests)
Propose upstream (only where it fits upstream goals)
Upstreamed (deprecated + removed here)
Retained (only for ecosystem glue: adapters/codemods/patterns)

What I am asking for

Is the framing acceptable (incubator + adapters, not stdlib replacement)?
Any naming preference for the namespace/repo (“Aggregate” vs “aLib” etc.)?
Any obvious “don’t step on this” areas I should avoid?

If the approach sounds reasonable, I can open an initial PR that is docs + scaffolding only (README, structure, policy), then follow with small modules that address concrete boundary pain points. I am not expecting others to work on this (unless it is of interest, then very happy to!) but just to see if this can give us a way to make development kinder to developers, and make amendments, additions, and deletions more friendly to users and developers.

NOTE: I am conscious that there are issues that might be more suitably addressed at compiler or AST level, but this approach could help with a number of items on the backlog/no status list, without impact upstream. And it might be a place to think about the piloting before messing with AST or compilers to see what the actual reception of ideas might be received by users and developers.

Again, this is a suggestion, not something I am wedded to. Happy if it just serves to spark thinking, but if you want, I am happy to progress it to see what it looks like in practice.

Thanks,
Jonathan