Who favors the current D1 situation?

[Bill Baxter]

Brian Hay wrote:
> Saaa wrote:
>> "Aarti_pl" <aarti at interia.pl> wrote in message 
>> news:fqrsbq$186c$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> 2. Semantics of new features in D 2.0 branch can change until 3.0 
>>> branch will be crated. It basically means that, when new features 
>>> will be continuously ported to D 1.0, then 1.0 branch will no more be 
>>> stable. You will not be able to create any program in D 1.0 (using 
>>> new features) and be sure that it won't break in future, because this 
>>> features can be changed later.
>>
>> This does not apply. No unstable feature must be allowed to be ported 
>> to D1 as it is given that D1 is stable, meaning no new feature may 
>> break older code.
> 
> D2 is unstable, therefore by definition ANY new feature added to it is 
> also unstable so shouldn't be ported to stable D1. The only guarantee of 
>  a given D2 feature's stability is when the entire D2 branch is locked 
> off and stable and the D3 has begun. Cherry-picking features based on 
> their perceived stability at a given time is dangerous.

By that definition D2 will never be stable because it has D2 features 
which are unstable.

Unstable features become stable features over time.  We may disagree on 
the timing, but, for instance, I doubt there are any serious bugs 
lurking in D2's implementation of delimited strings (q"(foo)" syntax).

--bb