Am Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:16:19 +0000 schrieb "Jesse Phillips" <[email protected]>:
> 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." Ok, so you were looking at it from the public perception view point and I was thinking of the personal effect. Anyways it looks like Andrei is convinced that close to no breaking changes need to happen any more (excluding possibly already wrong code). If so - and it hasen't been communicated clearly - he and Walter should probably say so more clearly in the coming weeks or at Dconf14. Then we could stop discussing final-by-default and other things that potentially break code, like the changes to string handling and instead focus only on language additions. -- Marco
