On 2 Sep 2015 5:31 am, "Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce" <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 09:44:17 Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> > On 9/1/15 6:48 AM, "Luís Marques  <l...@luismarques.eu> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 05:17:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > >> We have made the switch from C++ DMD to D DMD!
> > >
> > > Is there a rough prediction of when the use of phobos in ddmd will
> > > to be accepted?
> >
> > I'm not a dmd dev, but I'm not sure it will be accepted, since phobos is
> > very unstable. We have to be cautious about making dmd breakable easily
> > by a change to phobos.
> >
> > Of course, I think there is a baseline dmd/gdc/ldc that must be used to
> > build dmd, so perhaps as long as you use phobos features that work
> > there, it will be OK.
> Plenty of Phobos is stable and hasn't changed in quite a while. We do
> sometimes deprecate stuff still, but there isn't much that gets deprecated
> at this point, and the deprecation cycle is about two years. The common
> problem would be regressions, and the compiler gets those as much or more
> often than Phobos does. But it is true that some stuff in Phobos changes
> occasionally, and that could affect how new a compiler you need to compile
> the current dmd.

Don't forget, Phobos library maintainers love to use new features
everywhere.  Tagging many functions with @nogc almost weeks after it was
introduced in master was the last major backwards breaking change you did
that I'm aware of.


Reply via email to