Is DMD 0.166 RC 1.0?

[Juan Jose Comellas]

BCS wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Any compelling reason why not? I know that everyone (including me) wants
>> more features, more improvements, etc., but nothing about calling it 1.0
>> will prevent that from happening.
> 
> Are you talking about DMD or D?
> 
> I think that all *D* needs is some editing of the spec (disambiguating,
> typo corrections, etc.) A feature freeze NOW wouldn't bug me a bit.
> 
> DMD on the other hand has a ways to go. I've got a few pet peeves* and
> there is a bunch of known issues under dstress and the issue list.
> 
> Lastly after D is declared 1.0 RCn, DMD should be confirmed to actually
> (for the most part) implement it correctly before it is declared 1.0.
> For that I'm thinking of a systematic sweep of the spec where test cases
> are generated for as many parts as can be managed. Each test case should
> be confirmed to work or be tagged as a correct program (a.k.a a known
> issue).
> 
> Submitting these to dstress might be a good idea also.
> 
> *> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=52

I think this is an important distinction to make. The D spec may be ready 
and DMD might be ready on Windows too, but the Linux version is far from
being usable for any kind of production environment. Once DMD on Linux
generates correct debug information, allows the creation of shared
libraries and has no code generation problems (see
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=315) we could probably talk
about it.

Is the Linux DMD version intended to be part of the 1.0 release?