@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[mist]

On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 13:43:41 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
> On 2013-01-24 14:01, mist wrote:
>
>> And yet it must have been done at some point. With some 
>> year-ahead
>> announcement or anything like that, but it was a horrible 
>> design error
>> in first place which needs to be fixed.
>
> Yes, it was a horrible design error but it didn't break any 
> code because the -property flag is optional.

Design error was to not force "-property" since the very 
beginning. Now good decisions are kind of doomed to break code 
because restrictions were (and still are) too lax and a lot of 
inconsistent code is somewhere out there.

This is exactly why I voted for LTS + rolling-release model. D is 
still far from the point where design specs can be frozen and 
breaking code prohibited. Those still have mistakes.