On Monday, 17 March 2014 at 05:14:40 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
Deprecation is breaking code, it's a good way to to do it, but
you shouldn't kid yourself that it isn't a breaking change.
It certainly is a subjective matter.
I don't see how it is. How do you define a change which has
broken code.
I just try to
fix these locations immediately instead of changing the build
options to include -d.
You're code no longer compiles due to a compiler change, that is
what I consider a breaking change.
Silent breaking changes are a totally different beast.
Agreed.
At the end of the day I see no way for D to evolve "correctly"
with the man power it has and the demands for both a stable
target and improvements to so many things from
final-by-default over "scope" to "shared".
If we collected all these bits in a list we would see that
they can't all be fixed in one release and things are still
going to break quite a few times in the future. TLBB? Not
quite there yet! ;-)
Agreed. Just because we feel that D still needs breaking changes,
doesn't mean we should change the definition so that we can tell
the world we don't break code every release. "No civilian
casualties! We just found it easier to declare all humans as
combatants."
