On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.ol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Walter Bright > <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote: >> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Walter Bright >>> <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Denis Koroskin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> One of the breaking changes that I recall was that you made Posix >>>>> identifier built-in and thus any custom Posix versioning became an >>>>> error. Not sure if it was introduced in 1.041, though, but it is >>>>> still a breaking change. >>>> >>>> It was more of a build system change, but I get your point. It shows that >>>> even trivial changes are a bad idea for D1. >>>> >>> >>> Everyone certainly does not think it was a bad idea. If trivial things >>> like this sets people off, they should at least look at the problem >>> (and comment those few lines) before complaining. >>> >>> All my humble opinion of course. >> >> To me, it illustrates a fundamental disconnect. One cannot have both a 100% >> stable language and yet introduce improvements to it. >> > > I don't necessarily want a 100% stable language. In fact I don't. But > obviously asking for both is just silly. > The only thing I'm not happy about is if code that used to work, still > compiles, but no longer works. This is where the real problem is and > I've seen it several times. MinWin, APaGeD and probably others. >
Which leads me to: If I was to help with a D 1.1 implementation, only features that would not change any semantics of valid D1 code would go in.