On 2011-09-06 17:53, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 9/6/11, Andrei Alexandrescu<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Or should we, au contraire, use "old_" for the
old module and advise people who want to stick with the old modules to
change their imports?
I would say that's the right way to go. It's much easier to change an
import than change code. Perhaps another alternative is to use version
statements. DFL uses it for deprecated features that are still in the
codebase and usable.
We don't want to punish people for using newer modules, we should
encourage it. If they're forced to import "std.xml_new", they'll
eventually have to change those imports to "std.xml" down the road
when the older std.xml gets replaced by the new one. I assume people
will just pick the first thing that they see, "std.xml" looks standard
so they would pick that over "std.xml2".
Yeah, I hate that with Java interfaces, appending a number. Just because
the good proper name is already taken and they can't break existing code.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
