On Monday, 22 September 2014 at 15:18:00 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Piotrek:
>
>> No, it's not a good idea. Tweaking memory management shouldn't require the language branching. IMHO, this would be a suicide.
>
> I didn't meant the advancement as a language branching, but as a successive version that is (mostly) backwards compatible. Likewise C#6.0 is not a branching of C#5.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

I'm not sure how you define a branch, but I look at it from SCM pov. E.g.
assuming C#6 is master/trunk/development branch then C#5 is a maintenance branch of it (same for other C# versions). That means, MS has to keep fixing all versions in parallel.

Piotrek

On 23 September 2014 00:50, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 9/22/14, 1:56 AM, ixid wrote:
>
>> Fasten your seatbelt, it's gonna be a bumpy ride! :o)
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>>
>>
>> The fundamentalness of the changes seem to be sufficient that one could argue it's D3.
>>
>
> Let's aim for not.
>
>  If you're going to make major changes wouldn't it be
>> worth a fuller break to address some of the other unresolved and seemingly pretty major issues such as const/immutable and ref?
>>
>
> What are the major issues with const/immutable and ref?


This is precisely why I've mostly given up on this NG...