On 29 August 2012 04:31, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote:
> 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. > I've conceded that I don't mind changing my code, if a satisfactory alternative exists (it doesn't currently). Also, I'd like to have some notice that I need to make some time to change the code, and the opportunity to work it into my schedule. Surely that's not unreasonable.
