http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5112
--- Comment #2 from Peter Alexander <peter.alexander...@gmail.com> 2010-10-24 11:09:35 PDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > A *specification* should not list planned future changes at all. Besides, > such > a list cannot satisfy any objective standard for completeness. > > And could you please post a link to Walter's message on what you're on about? Here's a relevant link: http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=114064 Andrei - "Walter plans to change the documentation to reflect the demise of delete and scope storage class." I agree to some extent that planned changes should not necessarily be in the specification, but they definitely need to be somewhere, and I see no harm in at least putting a note in the specification that these features are scheduled for deprecation. Currently, the only way to know about the status of scope and delete is to be a regular on the news groups. This is, of course, unacceptable. There needs to be some authoritative reference for people to refer to, so that people can learn the language without reading the news groups. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
