Template issues in D

jcc7 technocrat7 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 21 09:35:21 PST 2008


== Quote from Bill Baxter (dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com)'s article
> Burton Radons wrote:
> > I'm not so sure I want the language to act differently just for
> > templates.
>
> If you're referring to the request to put it in D1, I can understand
> your reluctance.  Personally I'd like to see *all*
> backwards-compatible changes ported to D1, but that's just me.

It seems to me that Walter is avoiding fixing bugs for D1. That's a bad sign in my
opinion.

For example, one of the bugs that you mentioned -
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=493 - was apparently a pre-D1 bug
(0.173). Instead of telling us that the spec for D1 doesn't allow this, he tells
us that DMD 2.011 was enhanced to do this. Is he thinking: "I'm careful to not
call it a bug so that I won't have to fix D1"?

If D1 is being abandoned and D2 isn't ready for the prime time, where can we can
go to find a stable bug-free compiler?

And by the way until a big project (such as Tango or DFL or DWT) is converted to
D2, I'm suspicious that the new const stuff will be more trouble than it's worth.
What's the biggest project that has been converted to D2?

I know that Walter has converted Phobos and MicroEmacs to D2, but I doubt that
either of those projects are big enough to really see how the new const stuff works.


By the way, this thread has converged with a separate thread...

>From "stable != abandoned [was: My Kingdom For ...]",
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=66544

<quote>
I agree. D1.0 looks more "abandoned" than "stable". A language should keep moving
even when it's stable, as long as the changes are backward
compatibles. That mean that a new syntax that was previosly forbiden or new
additions to the standard library could be done without affecting stability.
</quote>



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list