On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 04:16:15PM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 09:27:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > it was deemed too dangerous to have in suddenly really mean both > > scope and const, because it would potentially break a lot of code. > > To be frank, this pisses me off to a ridiculous extent because if it > "breaks" at all... THAT CODE WAS ALREADY BROKEN. The compiler would > now just be actually telling you the truth. > > And many of us have spent years describing what it is supposed to do > (it WAS documented in the spec the whole time!) and how to use it > properly, so much code using it may actually be totally correct, and > keeping the original behavior would actually help adoption of the new > rules because more code would be compatible with it! > > We need to stop being cowards about compile errors. The compiler > actually correctly flagging an error that it skipped before isn't code > breakage. That's FIXING broken code by actually drawing attention to > the ALREADY EXISTING bug.
+1. I think our current phobia of breaking existing code is getting a little too far on the side of paranoia. "Breaking" existing buggy code with a compiler error is a good thing. It's actually helping users find bugs in the code, and I'm sure any reasonable user would appreciate that! Certainly, I did when it happened to me in the past. T -- People say I'm arrogant, and I'm proud of it.
