Future of DMD 1.xxx
Bill Baxter
dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com
Tue Sep 4 05:20:20 PDT 2007
Lutger wrote:
> Simen Haugen wrote:
>> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote in message
>> news:fbj50b$2dd2$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> I've been meaning to ask...
>>> Am I right in thinking that basically nothing from WalterAndrei.pdf
>>> will be going into a DMD 1.xxx version?
>>>
>>> If so, that's a bummer because some of the upstream libraries aren't
>>> on D2.0, and the maintainers have stated that they're not going to
>>> port to 2.0 "until the 2.0 design is pretty conclusively settled", or
>>> "until it is near to release".
>>>
>>> --bb
>
> But if these features would get in 1.0, the whole stable vs unstable
> branch would be undone (could just as well merge back), and D will start
> to be all moving target again. We can't live on the bleeding edge and
> have stability at the same time.
Well, I was never one of those advocating that the language needed to
stop changing. But I do think a branch that maintains backwards
compatibility is good. As long as old code compiles with the new
compiler it's ok in my book. I even don't mind some small
incompatibilities like 'ref' becoming a keyword. I want to be able to
use the new features like struct inheritance and macros, even if more
conservative libraries stay away from them.
But in any event it's probably too much work for Walter to backport such
features to 1.x anyway. Would just mean 2.0 would take that much longer
to reach stability.
--bb
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list