On 2 Sep 2015 5:31 am, "Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce" < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 09:44:17 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On 9/1/15 6:48 AM, "Luís Marques <l...@luismarques.eu> wrote: > > > On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 05:17:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > > >> We have made the switch from C++ DMD to D DMD! > > > > > > Is there a rough prediction of when the use of phobos in ddmd will start > > > to be accepted? > > > > I'm not a dmd dev, but I'm not sure it will be accepted, since phobos is > > very unstable. We have to be cautious about making dmd breakable easily > > by a change to phobos. > > > > Of course, I think there is a baseline dmd/gdc/ldc that must be used to > > build dmd, so perhaps as long as you use phobos features that work > > there, it will be OK. > > Plenty of Phobos is stable and hasn't changed in quite a while. We do > sometimes deprecate stuff still, but there isn't much that gets deprecated > at this point, and the deprecation cycle is about two years. The common > problem would be regressions, and the compiler gets those as much or more > often than Phobos does. But it is true that some stuff in Phobos changes > occasionally, and that could affect how new a compiler you need to compile > the current dmd. >
Don't forget, Phobos library maintainers love to use new features everywhere. Tagging many functions with @nogc almost weeks after it was introduced in master was the last major backwards breaking change you did that I'm aware of. Iain.