Is DMD 0.166 RC 1.0?

[Don Clugston]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> 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.

Me too. If we know that things in the future are going to break, we want 
to break them now if at all possible.

   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