On 1/24/13 4:06 PM, mist wrote:
On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 21:00:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/24/13 3:58 PM, mist wrote:
Really, all this backwards-compatibility talk is a crap.
There's just a lot of evidence that suggests the contrary. Clearly we
don't want or like to be conservative, but apparently we need to.
Andrei
Do you read and answer only to the first sentence?
It was your second paragraph I quoted.
Can you honestly say
"D design is rock solid and correct, we will never be required to make
any backwards-incompatible change"?
Clearly the design is imperfect.
If you check those evidences, it was never breaking code alone. It was
breaking code AND lack of any sane process that allows to stick with
acceptable release version for longer time. And I suggest to fix the
right thing, not freeze specs and hope all problems will fade themselves.
My understanding is that we're working on such.
Andrei
