Is DMD 0.166 RC 1.0?

[Sean Kelly]

Don Clugston wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Bruno Medeiros 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.
> 
> Provided that the future plans for new syntax don't involve breaking 
> lots of existing code, then I would say yes. I'm not yet convinced that 
> this is true for the future RAII syntax (but I'm not convinced that it 
> isn't true, either).

Good point.  Personally, I'd like to get the new syntax now, even if 
stack allocation doesn't occur until later.  I think this means 
potentially dropping 'auto' from class declarations (so "auto class C 
{}" would be illegal) and making duplicate storage classes illegal for 
declarations (so "auto auto x = new MyClass()" would be illegal).  Also:

     MyClass c = MyClass();

could convert to:

     MyClass c = new MyClass();
     scope(exit) delete c;

and:

     char[] b = char[32];

could convert to:

     char[] b = new char[32];
     scope(exit) delete b;

With the appropriate extensions for type inference as well. 
Alternately, alloca could be used for the allocations if that's possible.


Sean