The new std.process is ready for review

[pjmlp]

On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 08:31:05 UTC, Lee Braiden wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:57:40 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> On 2/23/2013 6:58 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 06:46:13PM -0800, Jonathan M Davis 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Possibly, but Walter takes a very dim view on most any code 
>>>> breakage,
>>>> even if it means simply changing a makefile to make your 
>>>> code work
>>>> again,
>>>
>>> I find this rather frustrating...
>> 
>> Consider the common complaint from numerous people that "my 
>> code breaks
>> with every new release".
>
> Yes, and as a compiled systems language, I think D needs to aim 
> for
> compiling code from a decade ago, like GCC can (at least using 
> -ansi
> etc.).
>
> It seems like a some people modify D core libraries like they 
> would for
> Python, so that 3.0 code works, but 2.2 code doesn't etc.  I 
> don't think
> that's appropriate for D.  Not if it wants to be taken as 
> seriously as C/C
> ++, at least.
>

To be honest, for those of us old enough C and C++ compilers went 
through the same process.

One of the things that initially atracted me to Java was that my 
supposedly portable C and C++ code was riddled with #ifdefs to 
workaround compiler issues.

--
Paulo