Tango vs Phobos

[Nick B]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS at lycos.com)'s article
>> Sean Kelly:
>>> I would prefer that the old behavior the the default and that "new &fn"
>>> or something similar would be used for full closures.
>> We have already discussed why this is negative, when practically possible in D the default has to be
> the "safer" version (what "safer" is can be debated).
> 
> It's just a matter of opinion, I suppose.  As D is a systems language, I don't
> agree with many arguments about safety when that safety conflicts with my
> ability to control what the language is doing behind the scenes.  Portability
> between versions is also an issue--code that is correctly designed for D 1.0
> may be unusable on D 2.0 because the default behavior for certain language
> features is different, although the syntax is still completely legal.  Also, there
> isn't any way to easily grep for the use of delegates so finding such trouble
> spots requires a manual code review.
> 
> Because one of Tango's core design goals was to have no hidden allocations,
> this behavior is a major concern for me because it forces me to choose
> between elegant algorithm design (which works fine in D 1.0) and a design
> that's portable between language versions in a way I find acceptable.  I think
> if/when Tango is ever released for D 2.0 necessity may dictate that it be an
> unsupported release for reasons such as this.
> 
> 
> Sean

Sean

Can you explain what you mean by a "unsupported release" ?

Do you mean that all bugs will not fixed or only a certain sub-set of 
bugs ?

Nick B