Sean Kelly, el 26 de marzo a las 22:08 me escribiste: > == Quote from Leandro Lucarella (llu...@gmail.com)'s article > > > > D situation is a little different because D2 is already here, and it's too > > much ahead of D1. So a plan to backport features from D2 to D1 > > progressively should be done. > > Who is going to do these backports?
That's a fair question without an answer =) (I wish I had the time to do it. If I had the time I probably first do it and then propose it) > Personally, I'd rather think about moving my code to D2 in one jump than > in a bunch of incremental steps, each requiring a custom compiler. Are you? If not, why? I think D2 being a moving target make people don't want to port code because it would be too hard to maintain. They idea behind 1.x series is that each minor version is *stable*. Code you port to, let's say, 1.1.000, will work with 1.1.100. No new predefined versions, no new nothing. You get a really stable language and one that evolves fast. You just have to do some minor porting about once a year, when a new minor version is release, and that porting should be trivial. Porting code to D2 now is a complicated excercise, at least to do it right (using constness features). -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algún día los libros desterrarán a la radio y el hombre descubrirá el oculto poder del Amargo Serrano. -- Ricardo Vaporeso. El Bolsón, 1909.
