Yet not released feature is not visible for almost D users. What you are going to do in 2.061 is to add a warned feature suddenly.
But, it is certainly no problem for almost D users (unless users use old @[] syntax, compiler never warn). I think what you must to do is to cut the time limit of removing @[] syntax. X months after? In version 2.0yy? You should say much better answer than *in the future*. Kenji Hara 2012/12/14 Walter Bright <[email protected]> > On 12/13/2012 4:17 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: > >> 1. How much work would it be for the guys at Remedy Games to convert their >> codebase from [] to @()? >> > > I don't know. All I know is it's a lot of code. > > > > 2. What is your plan moving forward, i.e. how to you intend to handle >> deprecation/removal of the feature? >> > > Warning, then deprecation, then removal. The usual. > > > > 3. Why is the message you introduced a warning instead of a normal >> deprecation >> error? >> > > Because skipping the warning phase has historically been too abrupt for > people. > > > > For 1., I would guess at most something like half an hour for a large >> codebase >> where the feature is used pervasively (you just keep editing/compiling >> until >> there are no more syntax errors), which is why I can't quite understand >> the fuzz >> you are making about keeping the feature. And even if they cannot switch >> right >> now, as the Remedy guys are obviously willing to use experimental compiler >> versions, can't they just use a patched version until they have made the >> switch? >> > > Like any major user of a language, they want confidence in our full > support of them. Asking them to use a patched or branch version of the > compiler does not inspire confidence. > > > > Let me also repeat the most important point: If we release 2.061 like >> this, DMD >> will silently accept the old syntax, so your decision will actually lead >> to >> *more* breakage when the feature is removed in the future. >> > > The [ ] syntax was never documented and won't be, so I doubt there'll be > any new use of it, nor does it interfere with anything else. > > > What I'm doing is hardly unique in business history. When Boeing designed > the 707, they showed the prototype to Pan Am, their biggest potential > customer. Pan Am wanted a slightly wider fuselage. At enormous expense, > Boeing threw out their tooling and built all new tooling and a new design, > all just to make the sale to Pan Am. It paid off enormously for Boeing, > because with Pan Am buying 707s, the other airlines all couldn't wait to > buy them, too. > > When Westinghouse had AC and Edison had DC, they competed for the Niagra > power project. Both knew that would be the lynchpin of their industry, and > both did whatever it took to get that design win. Westinghouse got the > contract, and that's why our electrical grid is 60 Hz AC. > > Ok, we're not Boeing or Westinghouse. But we have an opportunity to go big > time, and I'm not going to let that get away from us. >
