== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article > No, it's a question to the community. I'm the primary maintainer of the > math modules in both libraries. The efforts are straightforwards and not > very time consuming. But I don't think I can break code just because I > have a personal desire for unity. > > Indeed , I don't think there's a person who don't want to see it happen. > Are people OK with some of their code breaking for the sake of unity? > For the math stuff, that would mean name changes on minor functions such as: > isnormal() -> isNormal() > I need a mandate.
Absolutely I am ok with code breaking for the sake of unity. If I hear one more word about backwards compatibility in the D2 branch, until D is a mature, established language, I'm going to go crazy. The whole point of D is that we think C++, Java, etc. have stagnated and are willing to break compatibility with legacy code to build a better language (and by extension, libraries). The whole point of D2 is that it's a bleeding edge alpha where stuff may break. If my code breaks, especially in such trivial ways, in the short run so that we can have a language and libraries that don't suck and aren't unnecessarily balkanized in the long run (unnecessarily meaning without having different design philosophies), I'm all for it.
