On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:30:21 -0700, bearophile <bearophileh...@lycos.com>
wrote:
Given:
- The many differences between dmd 2.059 and 2.060alpha, and the amount
of time passed since the release of 2.059;
- The fact that there are some 2.060alpha regressions to be fixed still,
so dmd 2.060 is not coming out tomorrow;
- And the recent idea of introducing stable dmd releases that include
many patches despite not being really a v.2.061 (see the "Stable D
Releases!" in D.announce);
- That I think a "languageNumber.majorVersion.revision" numbering scheme
is better, more widespread and more useful (where "languageNumber" is 1,
2 and maybe 3, a change in "majorVersion" means something is changed in
the language and this calls for changes in user code and this is the
point where the stable D releases must include all the patches of the
main trunk, and "revision" means just bug fixes and tiny
backwards-compatible enhancements that are not necessarily included in
the stable D release) (See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning ).
Then I suggest to call the next release dmd 2.1.0 :-)
And maybe in such 2.1.0 it's better to deprecate the features marked as
"future" here:
http://dlang.org/deprecate.html
In a Bugzilla entry (6277) I have also suggested another idea (maybe fit
for dmd 2.1.0 still) to improve the evolvability of the D language:
beside using -d (deprecated features) another way to face those problems
is to use an idea from Python, a switch like "-future" that activates
language features that will be introduced in future (this also means the
"-property" flag gets moved into "-future" and removed, so the total
amount of dmd flags doesn't change).
Bye,
bearophile
This may pose an issue to the dlang-stable project ... Particularly I
think we all are still trying to figure out just how it will work. At this
point the dlang-stable repos are just forks of D from June 16th, it's
essentially just a snapshot of 2.060. Our plan was to reset the repos to
2.060 to clean out any mistakes made during the learning process and then
use 2.060 as a the base point.
After that a 2.1.61 makes a LOT of sense, at least for dlang-stable. :-)
However, if you want to make the argument that the June 16 snapshot of
2.060 is a good enough starting point, i'm all ears. :-)
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
