DMD 1.032 and 2.016 releases

[Sean Kelly]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Sean Kelly" wrote
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> "Jarrett Billingsley" wrote
>>>> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
>>>> news:g52v0a$13hh$5 at digitalmars.com...
>>>>> Koroskin Denis wrote:
>>>>>> Maybe, but so-called stable version should provide bug-compatibility 
>>>>>> as well :)
>>>>>> But then, there are people who want to have certain breaking bugs 
>>>>>> fixed. Can't please everyone.
>>>>> And we also have #288 where Sean wants a breaking language change put 
>>>>> into 1.0. I cannot justify that, but fixing bugs where invalid code was 
>>>>> accepted is justifiable.
>>>> I agree with your decision not to fix 288 in D1, but it *is* frustrating 
>>>> to have bugs that were reported when D2 was not even a twinkle in your 
>>>> eye not being fixed until D2.
>>> I have to say I wish D1 did have opEquals returning bool, but I'm on 
>>> Walter's side on not changing it now.  This is not a bug, but a design 
>>> change.  The original version (returning int) worked as designed, there 
>>> was nothing 'broken' about it.
>> I'd consider this broken about it:
>>
>>     bool isEqual( Object x, Object y )
>>     {
>>         return x == y; // fails
>>     }
>>
>> You have to cast the result to bool.
> 
> Again, behaves as designed :)  The compiler and the runtime both behave 
> exactly as the spec dictates.  Designs decisions can suck, and be 
> inconsistent with the philosophy of the project (as in this case), but that 
> doesn't make them bugs.  They are still arbitrary decisions, with no clear 
> cut 'right' or 'wrong'.

Okay, fair enough :-)  I'd still consider this to be a flaw in the spec 
since the result of a logical operation should always be boolean, but 
that's obviously just my opinion.


Sean