Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)

[kenji hara]

Yet not released feature is not visible for almost D users.
What you are going to do in 2.061 is to add a warned feature suddenly.

But, it is certainly no problem for almost D users (unless users use old
@[] syntax, compiler never warn). I think what you must to do is to cut the
time limit of removing @[] syntax. X months after?  In version 2.0yy?
You should say much better answer than *in the future*.

Kenji Hara

2012/12/14 Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com>

> On 12/13/2012 4:17 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
>
>> 1. How much work would it be for the guys at Remedy Games to convert their
>> codebase from [] to @()?
>>
>
> I don't know. All I know is it's a lot of code.
>
>
>
>  2. What is your plan moving forward, i.e. how to you intend to handle
>> deprecation/removal of the feature?
>>
>
> Warning, then deprecation, then removal. The usual.
>
>
>
>  3. Why is the message you introduced a warning instead of a normal
>> deprecation
>> error?
>>
>
> Because skipping the warning phase has historically been too abrupt for
> people.
>
>
>
>  For 1., I would guess at most something like half an hour for a large
>> codebase
>> where the feature is used pervasively (you just keep editing/compiling
>> until
>> there are no more syntax errors), which is why I can't quite understand
>> the fuzz
>> you are making about keeping the feature. And even if they cannot switch
>> right
>> now, as the Remedy guys are obviously willing to use experimental compiler
>> versions, can't they just use a patched version until they have made the
>> switch?
>>
>
> Like any major user of a language, they want confidence in our full
> support of them. Asking them to use a patched or branch version of the
> compiler does not inspire confidence.
>
>
>
>  Let me also repeat the most important point: If we release 2.061 like
>> this, DMD
>> will silently accept the old syntax, so your decision will actually lead
>> to
>> *more* breakage when the feature is removed in the future.
>>
>
> The [ ] syntax was never documented and won't be, so I doubt there'll be
> any new use of it, nor does it interfere with anything else.
>
>
> What I'm doing is hardly unique in business history. When Boeing designed
> the 707, they showed the prototype to Pan Am, their biggest potential
> customer. Pan Am wanted a slightly wider fuselage. At enormous expense,
> Boeing threw out their tooling and built all new tooling and a new design,
> all just to make the sale to Pan Am. It paid off enormously for Boeing,
> because with Pan Am buying 707s, the other airlines all couldn't wait to
> buy them, too.
>
> When Westinghouse had AC and Edison had DC, they competed for the Niagra
> power project. Both knew that would be the lynchpin of their industry, and
> both did whatever it took to get that design win. Westinghouse got the
> contract, and that's why our electrical grid is 60 Hz AC.
>
> Ok, we're not Boeing or Westinghouse. But we have an opportunity to go big
> time, and I'm not going to let that get away from us.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20121214/250e939b/attachment.html>