On 02-Sep-2015 07:52, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On 2 Sep 2015 5:31 am, "Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce"
> On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 09:44:17 Steven Schveighoffer via
> > On 9/1/15 6:48 AM, "Luís Marques <l...@luismarques.eu
> > > 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
> > > to be accepted?
> > I'm not a dmd dev, but I'm not sure it will be accepted, since
> > 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
> 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
> 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.
Because the compiler and library releases go in lockstep we'd have to
wait for another release cycle to even field-test @nogc. Not acceptable
Phobos ends up battle testing every new feature and if it wasn't new
features will be definitely shipped in a broken state. Let's not forget
that new D frontend features still have many bugs that stay undetected
even after testing in Phobos.