Backporting

[Bill Baxter]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote in message 
> news:fd8gnt$149q$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> I'd like to see some useful small things be backported from 2.x to 1.x, 
>> like foreach(i; 2 .. 8).
>>
>> (In the Python language the future Python V.2.6 will probably be a release 
>> to backport as much as possible).
> 
> No, see, the entire purpose of the split between 1.0 and 2.0 is that 1.0 
> won't get any new features.  It's a done deal.  All new features now go into 
> 2.0. 

I agree with Bearophile, not that it will make any difference.

In an ideal, manpower-unlimited world I'd say we'd have 3 versions of D: 
  1) D1.x stable which will not get new features (current D1.x),

2) D2.x which would get new features but do its best not to break old 
code, and

3) "D.X" would be the next-generation "eXperimental" D that breaks with 
backward compatibility (i.e. the current 2.x), and maybe occasionally 
just plain breaks.


But the real world is not manpower-unlimited, and one guy maintaining 
three versions of the compiler is not really feasible.  :-(  And 
maintaining versions 1) and 3) is clearly less of a load on Walter than 
2) and 3).

--bb