DMD 1.031 and 2.015 releases

[Charles Hixson]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:52:45 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> Walter Bright, el 19 de junio a las 12:08 me escribiste:
>>> Many, many times, however, I wished it was in D just because it would
>>> make coding it easier.
>> 
>> I don't think I have to tell *you* this, but since D is link compatible
>> with C, I don't think that's a real issue...
> 
> It is, for a couple reasons:
> 
> o  Some back ends (like mine) is in C++, not C.
> 
> o  If you're porting D to a platform that has no existing D compiler on
> it, you're in for some significant problems.

A D compiler option to emit C code?  (Or C++ code?)  It wouldn't need to 
be as efficient as D-to-executable in order to be portable.

(Yes, it would probably be a huge undertaking.  But it's an option for 
portability that would allow D to be written in D.  I believe this kind 
of bootstrapping was first used by Algol.)