Breaking backwards compatiblity

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jjeqak$f3i$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 3/9/2012 9:14 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 3/9/12 8:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2012 3:14 PM, bearophile wrote:
>>>> D will naturally progressively slow down the rhythm of its new breaking
>>>> changes, but even very old languages introduce some breaking changes 
>>>> (see
>>>> some of the changes in C++11),
>>>
>>> What breaking changes are there in C++11, other than dumping export?
>>
>> Deprecating exception specifications :o).
>
> I don't think that broke any existing code, because there wasn't any :-)
>
> Consider that I and some others agitated for dumping trigraphs. A couple 
> of people voiciferously claimed that their entire code base depended on 
> it, so it stayed in.
>
> Never mind that that codebase could be easily accommodated by writing a 
> literally trivial filter.
>
> But now, to support raw string literals, C++11 has mucked up trigraphs. 
> It's no longer possible to deprecate them without writing a filter that is 
> pretty much a full blown C++ compiler itself.

So making improvements that involve trivially-handled breaking changes is 
good for C++ but bad for D?