"Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:jjeqak$f3i$1...@digitalmars.com... > On 3/9/2012 9:14 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> On 3/9/12 8:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote: >>> On 3/9/2012 3:14 PM, bearophile wrote: >>>> D will naturally progressively slow down the rhythm of its new breaking >>>> changes, but even very old languages introduce some breaking changes >>>> (see >>>> some of the changes in C++11), >>> >>> What breaking changes are there in C++11, other than dumping export? >> >> Deprecating exception specifications :o). > > I don't think that broke any existing code, because there wasn't any :-) > > Consider that I and some others agitated for dumping trigraphs. A couple > of people voiciferously claimed that their entire code base depended on > it, so it stayed in. > > Never mind that that codebase could be easily accommodated by writing a > literally trivial filter. > > But now, to support raw string literals, C++11 has mucked up trigraphs. > It's no longer possible to deprecate them without writing a filter that is > pretty much a full blown C++ compiler itself.
So making improvements that involve trivially-handled breaking changes is good for C++ but bad for D?