WTF: dmd 2.066 vs. dmd 2.067 really dangerous code breakage

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 4/23/15 9:09 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> We can make it an error in 2.067.1 and change semantics in 2.067 -
> actually I'd recommend to do it that way. Breaking normal deprecation
> process is not good.

I agree it should have been done, not saying it's OK to break the 
process in some cases. I'm just explaining why it probably happened the 
way it did.

However, breaking it again in 2.067.1 is not good. Anyone who creates 
immutable fields for 2.067 and then upgrades to 2.067.1 is going to be 
upset. Even if we agree on how semantic changes should happen in the 
future (and should have happened in the past), it's not acceptable to 
change them for a point release.

-Steve