Yet not released feature is not visible for almost D users.
What you are going to do in 2.061 is to add a warned feature suddenly.
But, it is certainly no problem for almost D users (unless users use old @[] syntax, compiler never warn). I think what you must to do is to cut the time limit of removing @[] syntax. X months after? In version 2.0yy?
You should say much better answer than *in the future*.
Kenji Hara
2012/12/14 Walter Bright
<newshound2@digitalmars.com>
On 12/13/2012 4:17 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
1. How much work would it be for the guys at Remedy Games to convert their
codebase from [] to @()?
2. What is your plan moving forward, i.e. how to you intend to handle
deprecation/removal of the feature?
Warning, then deprecation, then removal. The usual.
3. Why is the message you introduced a warning instead of a normal deprecation
error?
Because skipping the warning phase has historically been too abrupt for people.
For 1., I would guess at most something like half an hour for a large codebase
where the feature is used pervasively (you just keep editing/compiling until
there are no more syntax errors), which is why I can't quite understand the fuzz
you are making about keeping the feature. And even if they cannot switch right
now, as the Remedy guys are obviously willing to use experimental compiler
versions, can't they just use a patched version until they have made the switch?
Like any major user of a language, they want confidence in our full support of them. Asking them to use a patched or branch version of the compiler does not inspire confidence.
Let me also repeat the most important point: If we release 2.061 like this, DMD
will silently accept the old syntax, so your decision will actually lead to
*more* breakage when the feature is removed in the future.
The [ ] syntax was never documented and won't be, so I doubt there'll be any new use of it, nor does it interfere with anything else.
What I'm doing is hardly unique in business history. When Boeing designed the 707, they showed the prototype to Pan Am, their biggest potential customer. Pan Am wanted a slightly wider fuselage. At enormous expense, Boeing threw out their tooling and built all new tooling and a new design, all just to make the sale to Pan Am. It paid off enormously for Boeing, because with Pan Am buying 707s, the other airlines all couldn't wait to buy them, too.
When Westinghouse had AC and Edison had DC, they competed for the Niagra power project. Both knew that would be the lynchpin of their industry, and both did whatever it took to get that design win. Westinghouse got the contract, and that's why our electrical grid is 60 Hz AC.
Ok, we're not Boeing or Westinghouse. But we have an opportunity to go big time, and I'm not going to let that get away from us.