Editions

[Dukc]

On Monday, 7 April 2025 at 03:43:58 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 April 2025 at 12:52:59 UTC, Dukc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 1 April 2025 at 16:21:59 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>> https://github.com/atilaneves/DIPs/blob/editions/editions.md
>>
>>> Modules without a module declaration would be considered to 
>>> be using the latest edition unless the default edition is 
>>> specified explicitly with a command line argument.
>>
>> Why? I see no reason that they shouldn't behave like the 
>> modules with editionless declaration at the top.
>
> I think this might be my fault. In a long-ago review of the 
> original editions, my concern was about *playground code*, or 
> simply trying out the langauge.

It seems I got this question a bit wrong. I somehow thought Átila 
was proposing that no declaration => current edition, editionless 
declaration => one specified by switch, the latest one by 
default. But in fact the DIP proposes the reverse.

So to be clear IMO the latest edition should always be the 
default. Not the present one. It's dead easy to add 
`-edition=2025` to the command line parameters if you're 
compiling old code sometime in the future. Getting people to 
consistently use the latest edition when the default is something 
else is much harder.