On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 09:27:53 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 12:37:29 PM MST Sergey via
Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
+1 to Steven’s approach
Idk why DLF don’t like KISS approach :(
Their focus is on allowing existing dub packages to continue to
compile without any effort whatsoever on the part of anyone
using them, because the breakage of dub packages over time as
the language changes has become a serious issue (that's the
main reason that they started looking at doing editions in the
first place).
Maybe I didn't understand the approach.
like let's assume several editions already in place (and we are
in 2030) and the project has several dependencies:
- main code (works with latest version. Latest edition)
- depmain.1 (work only with edition 2022)
- depmain.2 (work only with edition 2023)
|- dep2.1 (work with editions 2023-2027)
|- dep2.2 (work only with edition 2029)
So instead of force users to explicitly specify editions in
dub.jsons - DLF propose to use just "dub build" (without any
changes in code of dependency packages and main project) and
somehow each edition should be identified for each package?
Whether that's the right approach is certainly debatable (and
personally, I'd rather see something in dub take care of it
rather than require that new code slap editions stuff
everywhere), but there is a good reason for the approach that
they're currently looking at taking.
- Jonathan M Davis
I think when Grim was ranting about breaking changes and how hard
for him fixing it - he meant fixing real code, and I would be
quite surprise if for him it will be hard to add into his
dub.json/sdl 1 line:
"edition" : ["D2022"]
