"in" no longer "scope" since 2.079.0?

[H. S. Teoh]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 04:16:15PM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 09:27:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > it was deemed too dangerous to have in suddenly really mean both
> > scope and const, because it would potentially break a lot of code.
> 
> To be frank, this pisses me off to a ridiculous extent because if it
> "breaks" at all... THAT CODE WAS ALREADY BROKEN. The compiler would
> now just be actually telling you the truth.
> 
> And many of us have spent years describing what it is supposed to do
> (it WAS documented in the spec the whole time!) and how to use it
> properly, so much code using it may actually be totally correct, and
> keeping the original behavior would actually help adoption of the new
> rules because more code would be compatible with it!
> 
> We need to stop being cowards about compile errors. The compiler
> actually correctly flagging an error that it skipped before isn't code
> breakage.  That's FIXING broken code by actually drawing attention to
> the ALREADY EXISTING bug.

+1.  I think our current phobia of breaking existing code is getting a
little too far on the side of paranoia.  "Breaking" existing buggy code
with a compiler error is a good thing.  It's actually helping users find
bugs in the code, and I'm sure any reasonable user would appreciate
that!  Certainly, I did when it happened to me in the past.


T

-- 
People say I'm arrogant, and I'm proud of it.