On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 13:23:57 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote:

Also why can't we change the major version of the compiler? Every major version will have different default version of phobos and support only few recent versions (to allow decommission of the old versions of phobos). Basically something similar to GCC.

On 11/4/21 9:23 AM, Andrey Zherikov wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:46:35 UTC, Adam Ruppe wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 22:21:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Prolly we could have both so people could use either "io" or "std2".
>>
>> What I would actually do is make it the year of the planned stable release.
>>
>> For example we might not actually use "Stdv2" but instead "std2023". In years prior to that, it is now obviously a future version and thus subject to change, then when 2023 comes along, it is officially stablized and we can start playing with std 2024.
>>
>> This pace of putting major breaking changes in a yearly schedule would also give people realistic expecations. No, it won't break next month, but yes, it might next year.
> 
> Why no to do the similar thing as C++ std does? The working name of the next version is std2x, then as soon as it's stabilized, it's renamed to std2023. The following version might be std2y -> std2027, for example. We can use "a", "b", "c" etc. to ensure that we don't run out of letters within the decade.

Thanks, I'll do that. For now I'll use std2xalpha.

On 11/4/21 8:04 AM, rikki cattermole wrote:
> 
> On 04/11/2021 4:50 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
>> Given that code.dlang.org already has infrastructure in place for distributing many releases of the same package, I think it makes sense to use it for at least some of Phobos's distribution, if not all of it. And my gut reaction is that shipping *every* release in the official D distribution would be too much--at the very least, new users should not be presented with dozens of standard-library releases to choose from right off the bat. So, the right answer is probably somewhere between those two extremes.
> 
> Yeah I am well past the point of laughing about all of this versioning stuff.
> 
> Give us a dub package for anything that hasn't matured.
> 
> Once matured, it goes into Phobos.
> 
> Too much energy is being wasted on what should be a pretty streamlined process.

I don't think how to explain better that the mechanics of versioning are a different concern entirely than distribution.

On 11/4/21 2:12 AM, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:46:35 UTC, Adam Ruppe wrote:
> 
>> For example we might not actually use "Stdv2" but instead "std2023". In years prior to that, it is now obviously a future version and thus subject to change, then when 2023 comes along, it is officially stablized and we can start playing with std 2024.
>>
> 
> What if it's behind schedule? You'd have to explain to people in 2025 why the future version name is std2023. Also, std2023 is ugly.

Interestingly enough that's what happened to C++. The draft was C++0x for a long time until they realized they can't make it by 2010. The standard was ultimately C++11, and it was refreshed every three years right on schedule.

I can't understate just how successful their process is. We'd do good to learn from it.

On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:23:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Interestingly enough that's what happened to C++. The draft was C++0x for a long time until they realized they can't make it by 2010. The standard was ultimately C++11, and it was refreshed every three years right on schedule.
>
> I can't understate just how successful their process is. We'd do good to learn from it.

What C++ is doing is nothing like what you propose.

C++ has only one standard namespace and that is "std", ("std??" is reserved).

C++ is by and large backwards compatible. Both language and standard lib. Only a tiny number of unused features have been deprecated and signatures have been modified in non-breaking ways for the most applications.

On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 02:59:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 11/3/2021 8:37 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> By semver we'd go with std.v2_0_1 and so on.
>
> I understand its technical merits, but having to look at v2_0_1 is unbearably ugly.

Agreed, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if it looked like that

On 2021-11-04 8:04, rikki cattermole wrote:
> 
> On 04/11/2021 4:50 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
>> Given that code.dlang.org already has infrastructure in place for distributing many releases of the same package, I think it makes sense to use it for at least some of Phobos's distribution, if not all of it. And my gut reaction is that shipping *every* release in the official D distribution would be too much--at the very least, new users should not be presented with dozens of standard-library releases to choose from right off the bat. So, the right answer is probably somewhere between those two extremes.
> 
> Yeah I am well past the point of laughing about all of this versioning stuff.
> 
> Give us a dub package for anything that hasn't matured.
> 
> Once matured, it goes into Phobos.
> 
> Too much energy is being wasted on what should be a pretty streamlined process.

I've said this a few times and I'll say it again in the hope it catches on:

The process of distributing versions of software and the process of coding and maintaining versions of software are distinct.

On 2021-11-04 2:12, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:46:35 UTC, Adam Ruppe wrote:
> 
>> For example we might not actually use "Stdv2" but instead "std2023". In years prior to that, it is now obviously a future version and thus subject to change, then when 2023 comes along, it is officially stablized and we can start playing with std 2024.
>>
> 
> What if it's behind schedule? You'd have to explain to people in 2025 why the future version name is std2023. Also, std2023 is ugly.

Right now it's std2xalpha, to be renamed to std22 or std23 etc when the version matures. I hope it won't spill into std3x :o).

On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 22:43:45 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

>
> Right now it's std2xalpha, to be renamed to std22 or std23 etc when the version matures. I hope it won't spill into std3x :o).

Sorry for the delay. I don't quite understand why we have to copy that mistake of C++. How is encoding the excessive semantic information in a frequently used identifier better than just having std<N> plus a doc page with the release dates?