On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:45 PM, grauzone <n...@example.net> wrote: > Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote: >> >> Which leads me to: If I was to help with a D 1.1 implementation, only >> features that would not change any semantics of valid D1 code would go >> in. > > Isn't this the point of the whole "D 1.1" idea? >
People seem to have different ideas of what D 1.1 should be.
