DMD 1.030 and 2.014 releases

[Sean Kelly]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:g12s4e$j26$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
>> news:g11ove$181r$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>>>> Any chance we'll be getting a backport of the fix to bug 493 in DMD 
>>>>>> 1.031?   [ http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=493 ]
>>>>> I understand your point, and I have mixed feelings about it. The 
>>>>> trouble is, it isn't a stable target if it gets language changes, and 
>>>>> everyone has a different idea on what should be moved from 2.0 to 1.0.
>>>> You're worried about existing D1 code that relies on IFTI failing?
>>> No, I'm concerned about different D1 compilers that support different 
>>> languages.
>> Uh, DMD 1.000 vs. DMD 1.030?
> 
> The point being that _this has already happened_ with, apparently, no real 
> problems. 

Walter's argument could apply to really any bug fix anyway, because they 
all affect compiler behavior.  I think what's important is to determine 
what the intended feature set was for D 1.0 and decide based on that. 
Clearly, we all thought that IFTI would eventually work as advertised in 
D 1.0, and perhaps Walter does not agree.  What worries me is that long 
asked-for bug fixes like this may be left out of DMD 1.0 as a way to 
"encourage" people to move to D 2.0.  If that happens, I'm out.


Sean