That doesn't address the central issue, which is that there will be two slightly different languages that have the same name. We can device any amount of pragmas and fancy compatibility systems, but every time we do we also invariably add complexity which makes everything more confusing for users. I.e. it gets harder to understand what is meant with the language "Pike".
I think it only could be worth the added confusion if all these ugly spots are fixed in one go, where "fixed" implies that there are no compatibility kludges. This gives a language that is close to but not quite Pike, and the best way then to limit the confusion is to call it something else.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2003-01-06 22:10: Subject: Re: Inconsistency.
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 10:00:02PM +0100, Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS @ Pike developers forum wrote:
Yes, it is. It's one among many small uglinesses that only gets worse if one tries to fix them. Maybe we could start a very unofficial and experimental fork where we fix all such inconsistencies and other design mistakes that have been made during the years.
how about pragma "consistent" that one can turn on if desired just like turning on backwards compatibility...
greetings, martin.
/ Brevbäraren