The path to unity [You ALL ignored my post!]

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Don (nospam at nospam.com)'s article
> No, it's a question to the community. I'm the primary maintainer of the
> math modules in both libraries. The efforts are straightforwards and not
> very time consuming. But I don't think I can break code just because I
> have a personal desire for unity.
> > Indeed , I don't think there's a person who don't want to see it happen.
> Are people OK with some of their code breaking for the sake of unity?
> For the math stuff, that would mean name changes on minor functions such as:
> isnormal() -> isNormal()
> I need a mandate.

Absolutely I am ok with code breaking for the sake of unity.  If I hear one more
word about backwards compatibility in the D2 branch, until D is a mature,
established language, I'm going to go crazy.  The whole point of D is that we
think C++, Java, etc. have stagnated and are willing to break compatibility with
legacy code to build a better language (and by extension, libraries).  The whole
point of D2 is that it's a bleeding edge alpha where stuff may break.  If my code
breaks, especially in such trivial ways, in the short run so that we can have a
language and libraries that don't suck and aren't unnecessarily balkanized in the
long run (unnecessarily meaning without having different design philosophies), I'm
all for it.