Le 10/03/2012 00:24, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
On Friday, March 09, 2012 15:14:39 H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 11:46:24PM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 09-03-2012 23:32, Walter Bright wrote:
This statement is from Linus Torvalds about breaking binary
compatibility:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/495
While I don't think we need to worry so much at the moment about
breaking binary compatibility with new D releases, we do have a big
problem with breaking source code compatibility.
This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking changes.
If we want to start being able to avoid breaking changes, we
*really* need to finally deprecate the stuff that's been slated for
deprecation for ages...
[...]
Does that include std.stdio and std.stream? When are we expecting std.io
to be ready?
IMHO, this is one major change that needs to happen sooner rather than
later. The current lack of interoperability between std.stdio and
std.stream is a big detraction from Phobos' overall quality.
Note that he didn't say that we should _never_ make breaking changes but
rather that we need to have a very high bar for making such changes. In
particular, it's stuff like renaming functions without changing functionality
that he's against.
Just about that, having a consistent naming convention is an issue of
first importance. In the given topic, I did argue for some convention,
but, let's look at the larger picture and how it relate to this topic.
Whatever the naming convention is, it mandatory to have one.
So at some point, renaming stuff are going to happen, or phobos will
become completely opaque when growing.
Renaming just one function isn't important enough to justify to break
compatibility. Having a consistent naming convention is.
