State of Play

[Tomas Lindquist Olsen]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
<tomas.l.olsen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Walter Bright
> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Walter Bright
>>> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the breaking changes that I recall was that you made Posix
>>>>> identifier built-in and thus any custom Posix versioning became an
>>>>> error. Not sure if it was introduced in 1.041, though, but it is
>>>>> still a breaking change.
>>>>
>>>> It was more of a build system change, but I get your point. It shows that
>>>> even trivial changes are a bad idea for D1.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone certainly does not think it was a bad idea. If trivial things
>>> like this sets people off, they should at least look at the problem
>>> (and comment those few lines) before complaining.
>>>
>>> All my humble opinion of course.
>>
>> To me, it illustrates a fundamental disconnect. One cannot have both a 100%
>> stable language and yet introduce improvements to it.
>>
>
> I don't necessarily want a 100% stable language. In fact I don't. But
> obviously asking for both is just silly.
> The only thing I'm not happy about is if code that used to work, still
> compiles, but no longer works. This is where the real problem is and
> I've seen it several times. MinWin, APaGeD and probably others.
>

Which leads me to: If I was to help with a D 1.1 implementation, only
features that would not change any semantics of valid D1 code would go
in.