dmd 1.069 and 2.054 release

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1539.1310416341.14074.digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com...
> On 2011-07-11 13:09, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> Not that I feel strongly about it, but just like "scheduled for
>> deprication", actual warnings are things that *are* valid code, too. Ie,
>> they're just messages, too. The whole point of a "warnings as errors"
>> setting is that some people want that extra help to ensure their code is
>> perfectly pristine. (Although, personally, I've never seen particularly
>> strong reason for "warnings as errors" settings anyway.)
>>
>> To be clear, if we did have some "deprecated(scheduled)" feature and it 
>> was
>> non-fatal even with -w, I wouldn't personally have a huge problem with it
>> (I never use -w anyway, just -wi). I just don't think it's so clear-cut
>> that "scheduled for deprication" doesn't essentially amount to a warning.
>
> Hmm. The main problem with making the scheduled for deprecation messages 
> being
> treated as errors with -w is that if you build with -w (as a lot of people
> do), it breaks your code. And the point of the message is to warn you that
> your code is _going_ to break and to _avoid_ causing immediate breakage.
>

If someone doesn't want warning conditions to break their code, they should 
be using -wi, not -w.