Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
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.
Isn't this the point of the whole "D 1.1" idea?
