On 5/23/2013 8:53 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:38:32 -0400, Walter Bright <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/23/2013 7:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This is one change where ALL code broken by this change
is fixable with a simple solution, and at some point, people will have to deal
with this.
Yes, but it is not so urgent as RIGHT NOW YOU MUST FIX IT. Hence, the warning.
If they aren't in the mood to change their code, they don't have to upgrade to
the latest compiler.
Q: Why do we bother with the whole warning and deprecation thing anyway?
A: Because forcing people to conform to our schedule with no warning is a bit
presumptuous. Someone writing a library, for example, has to be up to date, and
anyone using that library, for another, has to deal with it if it fails to
compile. If your code is built from multiple blobs from various places, it is
unreasonable to expect them to all instantly and simultaneously upgrade.
I'm a little startled by these responses, especially considering that just
yesterday we had a long thread about lack of stability and breaking changes.
