Breaking backwards compatiblity

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, March 09, 2012 16:40:37 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:48PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:12:34 -0500, Adam D. Ruppe
> > 
> > <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 22:32:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > >>This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking changes.
> > >
> > >Please remember this if someone proposes enforcing
> > >@property by default.
> 
> I propose enabling @property by default.
> 
> > Clears the bar with room to spare IMO.
> > 
> > Not to mention it's not just a proposal, but in print in TDPL .
> > 
> > (dons flame war proof suit)
> 
> [...]
> 
> I don't see what's there to flamewar about. AFAIK @property enforcement
> is going to happen sooner or later.

Yes. The problem is that some people don't like @property and don't want it 
enforced, whereas others think it's a big improvement. From the sounds of it, 
Adam thinks that it's bad, whereas Steven thinks that it's good. Personally, 
I'm _definitely_ in favor of property enforcement.

Regardless, it's in TDPL, and the current plan is to enforce it. It just 
hasn't reached that point yet, since we're still in the transition stage from 
not having @property at all to having @property and having it enforced.

- Jonathan M Davis