DMD 1.032 and 2.016 releases

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Sean Kelly" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> "Jarrett Billingsley" wrote
>>> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:g52v0a$13hh$5 at digitalmars.com...
>>>> Koroskin Denis wrote:
>>>>> Maybe, but so-called stable version should provide bug-compatibility 
>>>>> as well :)
>>>>> But then, there are people who want to have certain breaking bugs 
>>>>> fixed. Can't please everyone.
>>>> And we also have #288 where Sean wants a breaking language change put 
>>>> into 1.0. I cannot justify that, but fixing bugs where invalid code was 
>>>> accepted is justifiable.
>>> I agree with your decision not to fix 288 in D1, but it *is* frustrating 
>>> to have bugs that were reported when D2 was not even a twinkle in your 
>>> eye not being fixed until D2.
>>
>> I have to say I wish D1 did have opEquals returning bool, but I'm on 
>> Walter's side on not changing it now.  This is not a bug, but a design 
>> change.  The original version (returning int) worked as designed, there 
>> was nothing 'broken' about it.
>
> I'd consider this broken about it:
>
>     bool isEqual( Object x, Object y )
>     {
>         return x == y; // fails
>     }
>
> You have to cast the result to bool.

Again, behaves as designed :)  The compiler and the runtime both behave 
exactly as the spec dictates.  Designs decisions can suck, and be 
inconsistent with the philosophy of the project (as in this case), but that 
doesn't make them bugs.  They are still arbitrary decisions, with no clear 
cut 'right' or 'wrong'.

Take Tango's 'anti import' design philosophy.  It was made because a goal of 
Tango is to not bloat code, and the compiler happens not to trim out unused 
coded from modules.  I disagree with that decision, as I think D 
applications are bloated inherently anyways, and once dynamic libraries are 
natively supported, this becomes a moot issue.  But that doesn't mean I 
consider the design decision to be a 'bug', it just is something I disagree 
with, but live with.

-Steve