Porting libs to 2.0 (Re: [Issue 1486] New: Can't implicitly convert char[][] to const(char)[][])

[Bill Baxter]

kris wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
> [snip]
>> I'd like to do more in D 2.0, but if the libraries I need aren't 
>> ported, it's either spend a lot of time porting them myself, or stick 
>> with D 1.  Right now D1 seems the better option.  But since D1 isn't 
>> getting new features I suspect there will come a point when D2 gets 
>> something so utterly cool that it's worth doing whatever it takes to 
>> use it, including maintaining private 2.0 forks of other people's 
>> libraries.  Of course by then they might have already ported... so I 
>> might as well wait.
> 
> Bill,
> 
> If there were a clean way to alias or typedef or macro the D2 const 
> features (within D1) then Tango and other libraries would quickly become 
> available for D2. In other words, the const features of D2 would have to 
> be effectively ignored by the D1 compiler (through whatever means), and 
> the use of those features in D2 would have to be 'adjustable' in a quick 
> and easy manner (to adhere to syntactic changes). Macros might be ideal 
> for such a notion?

Macros probably won't be a solution because D1 won't have them.

I think we're stuck with version(D_Version2) + string mixin as the 
primary tools.

> Without the ability to retain a single body of source across both D 
> versions, and with the syntax of D2 const evolving over time, there's 
> little impetus to migrate a library right now

As long as you're willing to at least accept patches that provide 
backwards-compatible D2 support, nobody has any business complaining 
about that.

But that doesn't change the fact that "lack of libraries" is still the 
main reason I haven't moved myself over to D2.0 yet. :-)

--bb