https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11949
Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.bli...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |stanislav.bli...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.bli...@gmail.com> 2014-01-19 05:37:47 PST --- I'm with bearophile on this. If something goes away, let it go away. I may not be an active member of D community, but I am interested in writing software in D. This "ought to be deprecated but isn't, and what's the replacement?.." thing shouldn't last, it only brings confusion. Phobos has to be improved, libraries have to be written, software has to be written. How to do this reliably when there's no clarity on which language features should and shouldn't be used? This situation with delete. delete? destroy? clear? eradicate? Even now in Phobos one can find both delete and destroy being used. Adding any new module makes the "future" deprecation that much harder (and new modules are being reviewed even now). By not forcing the issue now, we're effectively introducing problems that would come up "in the near future". Or we'd end up with Phobos and other libraries cluttered with version blocks a-la C++'s glorified ifdef bundles that manage "deficincies" of various implementations. I was watching last year's DConf recently. And Andrei Alexandrescu presented a good case of required quality. Quality does not couple well with such ambiguities. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------