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

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 4/23/2015 6:26 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 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.

Yes, it should have been done. We screwed up.

> 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.

Unfortunately, you're right.