On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 01:13:15 Manu wrote: > On 28 August 2012 21:52, Andrei Alexandrescu > > <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org>wrote: > > On 8/28/12 8:23 AM, Manu wrote: > >> Well that's painful for a number of reasons.. > >> > >> Other than the fact that I need to rewrite a bunch of code, > > > > Walter and Kenji think breaking meaningful existing code is an overriding > > concern, and I ended up agreeing with them. > > > > They will look into a solution that keeps your working code working. > > > > This change of wind may as well turn a new page in the history of D :o). > > Wow, I didn't see that coming. > > At very least, just put it on a deprecation schedule. I'm happy (perhaps > even prefer) to use the alternative approach I've describe if those 2 > issues are addressed in some way.
The funny thing about that is that for the most part, language features which are supposed to be deprecated tend to just stick around instead of getting deprecated, meaning that people keep on using them, and that by the time they're actually deprecated, they'll break that much more code... It's one thing to decide not to make a change becasue we don't want to break code. It's quite another to just keep putting it off to avoid breaking code. That just makes things worse when it finally happens. - Jonathan M Davis
