On 6/6/13 12:50 PM, Dylan Knutson wrote:
Well, it comes down to are we willing to marginally break code for the sake of a better API.
Well the position of "marginally" in the sentence above may be contested by some.
D and Phobos aren't considered stable by any standard; I don't think we should treat them like they're set in stone. Also, deprecation gives developers plenty of time to update their code (if they have to at all).
I think this opinion is very unlikely to enjoy popularity. We actively /want/ to make Phobos more stable, so using the argument that it's not yet stable to add more instability is sure to fit the pattern of some list of fallacies. Besides, the corresponding benefits (the best solid argument that could be constructed) are at least according to some not that large to justify the cost of breakage.
Andrei
