Breaking backwards compatiblity

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:56:03 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:31:53PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > writefln is still there with the same old functionality (which is
> > good, it *is* a good function). It's just that writeln has been added
> > and just happens to be better in every way for the majority of
> > use-cases.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Strange, I still find myself using writef/writefln very frequently.
> When you want formatting in your output, printf specs are just sooo
> convenient.  But perhaps it's just a symptom of my having just emerged
> from the C/C++ world.  :-)

It's a question of what you're printing out. Is it more typical to write a 
string out without needing to construct it from some set of arguments, or is 
it more common to have to print a string that you've constructed from a set of 
arguments? It all depends on your code. There's no question that writef and 
writefln are useful. It's just a matter of what _your_ use cases are which 
determines whether you use writeln or writefln more.

- Jonathan M Davis