Am 26.06.2011 05:02, schrieb bearophile: > Walter : > >> To put this in perspective, here are some very successful languages and >> systems >> that never ever ever change function names, no matter what: >> >> C >> C++ >> Windows >> Linux > > People that use those systems are willing to accept lot of legacy cruft > because along with it, they gain backward compatibility with lot of past > things. But I think users of a new language as D are less willing to accept > similar things, because I think some of them are using D in the first place > because it contains less legacy stuff/designs/cruft.
Yeah. D2 is a new language, it isn't stable yet, so people shouldn't complain too much about changes and people will expect it to be tidier and more consistent than languages/systems that have evolved for decades, having such a huge userbase that backwards compatibility hat to be ensured. > On the other hand I agree that changing the name of toStringz is bad, on > overall. > I really don't care much about this. toCString() would be a better name, but toStringz is so commonly used that an alias for it should be kept anyway. Furthermore toStringz isn't so bad that I'd insist on it being changed (certainly not to "toStringZ" - that looks strange). Cheers, - Daniel
