Gary Whatmore Wrote: > 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.
I think the question is would this break any code? Don't think so. Would 'pure' ever be used with its current restrictions? To an extent, but I think it may result in multiple functions for the same thing. Don't know. And last if we start work on D3 which has ... such features over D2 who will be using D2? They'll still be waiting for the language to be finished. If it is decided to be the right thing I think we should do it now, not later. Lastly D1 will not be shot. D2 is already placed in maintenance mode, DMD just doesn't have everything implemented. But really, what is this obsession with thinking D1 has to go, or that it is slowing the progress of D2? Walter is running a business, he must support his products or clients won't buy/use them.
