Breaking backwards compatiblity

[Nick Sabalausky]

"deadalnix" <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:jjj907$2t00$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Le 11/03/2012 23:12, Walter Bright a écrit :
>>
>> And I did just that for "invariant". Over and over and over. People
>> immediately get what "immutable" means, like for no other name. So
>> consider "immutable" a labor saving device for me.
>
> We have the same phenomena with dur and return type type qualifier (ie: 
> why does const int* fun() isn't compiling ? Because const is qualifying 
> the function, not the return type).
>
> Both are recurring questions and so should be as important as immutable. 
> But both are major breaking change.

I wouldn't call dur->duration a *major* breaking change. First of all, you 
get a clear compile-time error, not silently changed semantics. Secondly, 
it's a simple search/replace: s/dur!/duration!/ (Not that I normally do 
search/replaces *completely* blind and unattended, but it's still trivial.)