DMD 1.030 and 2.014 releases

[Sean Kelly]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>>>> Any chance we'll be getting a backport of the fix to bug 493 in DMD
>>>>>> 1.031?   [ http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=493 ]
>>>>> I understand your point, and I have mixed feelings about it. The
>>>>> trouble is, it isn't a stable target if it gets language changes, and
>>>>> everyone has a different idea on what should be moved from 2.0 to 1.0.
>>>> You're worried about existing D1 code that relies on IFTI failing?
>>> No, I'm concerned about different D1 compilers that support different
>>> languages.
>>
>> But again, how does this represent a language change?
> 
> I think the issue is that the spec gives one or maybe two specific 
> examples of when IFTI works[1].  It says "if blah blah blah, then the 
> template parameters will be deduced automatically".  It does not say 
> what happens if *not* blah blah blah.
> 
> Plus it does say "implicitly, where the /TemplateArgumentList/ is 
> deduced from the arguments", and not something like "*some or all* of 
> the /TemplateArgumentList/ is deduced".  So I think Walter is right that 
> a literal reading of the spec suggests that this a language change.

My understanding of IFTI was that it was intended to eventually work a 
lot like IFTI in C++.  Walter has certainly said as much in the past, at 
any rate.  So I don't accept that we should have read between the lines 
in the spec regarding this.  Besides, if a strict interpretation of the 
spec were required then I'd expect D 1.0 to have things like inheritable 
contracts--a feature which may never actually make it into the language 
at all, despite requests.


Sean