On 11 November 2013 17:42, Dicebot <pub...@dicebot.lv> wrote: > > On Monday, 11 November 2013 at 17:05:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> There is current no 'release' per say for Go. So the version of Go would >> be whatever was the current stable as of the GCC release (or closing of >> stage1 development). > > > Well, you do realize it is completely unsuitable for D and will never work this way, don't you? :) And while I generally like to rant about lack of stable development process, GCC inverted approach seems much worse for anything that is not set in stone language covered by formalistic standard.
It can work this way. Perhaps with the realisation of a more stable releases (eg: exercising that certain point releases get maintained for a year). -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0'; On Monday, 11 November 2013 at 17:05:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > There is current no 'release' per say for Go. So the version of Go would > be whatever was the current stable as of the GCC release (or closing of > stage1 development). > Well, you do realize it is completely unsuitable for D and will never work this way, don't you? :) And while I generally like to rant about lack of stable development process, GCC inverted approach seems much worse for anything that is not set in stone language covered by formalistic standard.
