Benji Smith Wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
> > Benji Smith wrote:
> >> John Reimer wrote:
> >>> Yep, probably best just to be content with the druntime for now... that's a big move in itself ... and a great one.  If we demand too much of these guys, they are gonna balk. :-D

If these changes (and others discussed here lately) are going to break a lot of code, is it time to move to 3.0?
> >>
> >> Oh, don't get me wrong. I think it's a fantastic first step. I was just wondering whether there's a "step two" on the drawing board yet.
> > 
> > Step one is gonna be a doozy!
> 
> And I'm sure I speak for us all when I say we *REALLY* appreciate it. Being able to use both libraries will be a huge win.
> 
> --benji

Paul D. Anderson wrote:
> Benji Smith Wrote:
> 
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Benji Smith wrote:
>>>> John Reimer wrote:
>>>>> Yep, probably best just to be content with the druntime for now... that's a big move in itself ... and a great one.  If we demand too much of these guys, they are gonna balk. :-D
> 
> If these changes (and others discussed here lately) are going to break a lot of code, is it time to move to 3.0?

Until D 2.0 is finalized I think it's allowable for code to break between compiler releases.


Sean

Paul D. Anderson wrote:
> Benji Smith Wrote:
> 
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Benji Smith wrote:
>>>> John Reimer wrote:
>>>>> Yep, probably best just to be content with the druntime for now... that's a big move in itself ... and a great one.  If we demand too much of these guys, they are gonna balk. :-D
> 
> If these changes (and others discussed here lately) are going to break a lot of code, is it time to move to 3.0?

Noooooooooooooooo!!!!

Hello Paul,

> Benji Smith Wrote:
> 
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>> 
>>> Benji Smith wrote:
>>> 
>>>> John Reimer wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Yep, probably best just to be content with the druntime for now...
>>>>> that's a big move in itself ... and a great one.  If we demand too
>>>>> much of these guys, they are gonna balk. :-D
>>>>> 
> If these changes (and others discussed here lately) are going to break
> a lot of code, is it time to move to 3.0?
>


I think that just "ups" the complexity.  You may have just made a whole bunch of people faint with that suggestion. :-D

But I'm assuming you are suggesting that "3.0" respresent the merge of Phobos and Tango?  If that's the case, I don't think there need be an incremental version value to represent the change.

-JJR