Robert Clipsham wrote:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
(a) having a spec that the public agrees to be complete and consistent
I think this is probably the most important of your points. Without a
complete and consistent spec, there's no possible way to make a correct
compiler. All features need to be in there, explaining how they should
work in detail. This is a blocker for anyone who wants to write a D
compiler currently, they have to go by dmd in some cases rather than the
spec.
Exactly what I had been trying to say.
<snip>
I guess this is up to Walter. Would D 1.1 just be a milestone for D, or
would it need a new spec? Maybe D 1.1 could be a fork of D1 which
introduces the breaking changes and finalizes the spec? That way we
don't have the issue of breaking D1.0. When it is complete D1.0 could be
marked deprecated and D1.1 could take its place. Or of course the
changes could take place in D1.0 and gradually introduce the breaking
changes, making D1.1 the final result (or maybe just D1.098, however
many revisions of the compiler it takes :P).
What would these breaking changes be?
AISI the right time to declare D1.1 is once bug 677 is done and dusted
and the remaining spec issues (currently there are 43 non-enhancement
issues with the spec keyword filed against D1 and pre-D1 versions) have
at least had a go-over.
Stewart.
