Path as an object in std.path

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Thu Jun 6 10:50:20 PDT 2013


On Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:37:27 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/6/2013 9:50 AM, Dylan Knutson wrote:
> > Well, it comes down to are we willing to marginally break code for the
> > sake of a better API. D and Phobos aren't considered stable by any
> > standard; I don't think we should treat them like they're set in stone.
> > Also, deprecation gives developers plenty of time to update their code
> > (if they have to at all).
> I don't believe that because we broke A, therefore it's ok to break B.
> 
> And secondly, it isn't clear that Path is a better API.
> 
> I'm not opposed to breakage in all cases. But there needs to be a big win to
> justify it. I'm not seeing even a small net win for Path types. I'm not
> talking hypothetical either, like I said, I've tried them several times.

Some modules have needed been redone. Some still do. But we already _did_ 
rework std.path. We agreed that we liked the new API, and it's been working 
great. It's one thing to revisit an API that's been around since before we had 
ranges or a review process. It's an entirely different thing to be constantly 
reworking entire modules. I think that we need _very_ strong justification to 
redesign a module that we already put through the review process. And I really 
don't think that we have it here.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list