WTF: dmd 2.066 vs. dmd 2.067 really dangerous code breakage

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 4/24/2015 12:22 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 02:09:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 4/23/2015 6:26 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> I agree it should have been done, not saying it's OK to break the process in
>>> some cases. I'm just explaining why it probably happened the way it did.
>>
>> Yes, it should have been done. We screwed up.
>
> It's time that we agree on/document an official deprecation approach and
> rigorously enforce it, making as few exceptions as possible.

I thought we had one:

1. warning
2. deprecation
3. error
4. removal