https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14742
Mike <slavo5...@yahoo.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |slavo5...@yahoo.com --- Comment #1 from Mike <slavo5...@yahoo.com> --- > It seems to me that to truly avoid all breaking changes, we can't touch any > Phobos function signatures at all. This is probably too drastic, so I think > we need to establish some conventions of what breaking changes are acceptable. Please keep in mind that deprecation is *not* breakage in situations that allow redundancy, like renames and overloads. We just need to ensure that the user understands why there is more than one (documentation comment), and which one is preferred (`deprecated` attribute). There is a raging tug-of-war between those who want progress and evolution, and those who want stability. IMO, the best way forward, and an appropriate compromise, is deprecation without removal. As an example, the .Net Framework has had deprecated features since v2.0 (10 years ago), but they are still available for use, and likely will be in the far future (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh419162%28v=vs.110%29.aspx). --