State of Play

[grauzone]

Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
> 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.

Isn't this the point of the whole "D 1.1" idea?