On Friday, 9 March 2018 at 06:14:05 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
We'll make breaking changes if we judge the gain to be worth
the pain, but we don't want to be constantly breaking people's
code, and some changes are large enough that there's arguably
no justification for them, because they would simply be too
disruptive. Because of how common string processing is and how
integrated auto-decoding is into D's string processing, it is
very difficult to come up with a way to change it which isn't
simply too disruptive to be justified, even though we want to
change it. So, this is a particularly difficult case, and how
we're going to end up handling it remains to be seen. Thus far,
we've mainly worked on providing better ways to get around it,
because we can do that without breaking code, whereas actually
removing it is extremely difficult.
- Jonathan M Davis
It's aleady been said (by myself and others) that we should
actually try to remove it (with a compiler switch) and then see
what happens, how much code actually breaks, and based on that
experience we can come up with a strategy. I've already said that
I'm willing to try it on my code (that is almost 100% string
processing). Why not _try_ it, later we can still philosophize
