backporting features to D1

[Bent Rasmussen]

Really, it doesn't make any sense to mutate 1.0 into 2.0. There are separate 
language specifications and implementations. As Walter writes, use D 2.0 - 
or make do with D 1.0 until D 2.0 is baked and implemented. I would imagine 
his time would better spent actually making D 2.0 than injecting D 2.0 into 
"D 1.0".

- Bent


"Christian Kamm" <kamm-incasoftware at removethis.de> skrev i meddelelsen 
news:gcpjk0$19cf$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> u wrote:
>>> I like this feature so much.
>>> Is it possible to back port opDot to D 1.0?
>>
>>
>> The problem is for every last feature in D 2.0, there's someone who
>> wants that and only that ported to 1.0. If I moved over opDot, what am I
>> going to say to everyone else? I move over their features too, and then
>> D 1.0 becomes 2.0 anyway. I suggest instead just moving to 2.0 <g>.
>
> What about porting only nonbreaking features to D1? Like token strings,
> partial IFTI, foreach range, template constraints, ...?
>