Porting D2 code to D1

[Ryan Bloomfield]

Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:

> "Ryan Bloomfield" <_sir_maniacREMOVE_ME at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:g5oct3$2vpl$1 at digitalmars.com...
> 
> > Could a language construct be created in D1 and D2 to allow for a "lazy" 
> > version? 
> 
> To be honest, I kind of wish this were the case with version statements all 
> the time. 
> 
> 

    I disagree. I think it's good for all version blocks to compile under normal circumstances.  If it didn't do that, uncompilable code could creep in.   It would be especially bad if it involves machine-specific code.  Coding between different versions of D is clearly going to be used less then the other intended uses of 'version'.  

   Nevertheless,  in my humble opinion, I do think the ability to ignore, or relax syntax rules needs to happen.  Without it, any compiler or version specific feature could never be included in portable code.  And compiler specific features seem to be the norm for C and C++ compilers.