On 23/09/2010 10:36 PM, Gary Whatmore wrote:
Simen kjaeraas Wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Would it not be less tedious to mark unpure functions instead of pure
functions? Or am I just going too far with this?
You're probably going too far for it to be included in D2. D:
That said, I believe you are absolutely right, and what you're saying
is the right thing to do.
UP VOTES!!1
We could use these proposals as a base for D 2.5 or D 3.0. Now that a better
purity/constness system seems to solve problems more easily, D 2.0 seems too
limited for modern systems programming. Is it finally time to put D 1.0 to
rest, D 2.0 in maintenance mode, and concentrate on D 3? The TDPL book was
finally published and D 2.0 has been in bugfix mode for a while. Once we have a
64-bit compiler ready, it would be time to move on.
Agreed. D 1.0 was a stem cell. D 2.0 was part organ. Time is of the
essence to evolve to a transplant-able product.
