dmd 1.046 and 2.031 releases

[grauzone]

> You are just saying it's ugly. I don't think it's ugly. Walter doesn't 
> think it's ugly. Other people don't think it's ugly. Many of the people 
> who said it's ugly actually came up with proposals that are arguably 
> ugly, hopelessly confusing, or both. Look at only some of the rehashed 
> proposals of today: the genial "case [0 .. 10]:" which is horribly 
> inconsistent, and the awesome "case 0: ... case 10:", also inconsistent 
> (and gratuitously so) because ellipses today only end lists without 
> having something to their right. The authors claim those are better than 
> the current syntax, and one even claimed "beauty", completely ignoring 
> the utter lack of consistency with the rest of the language. I don't 

I oriented this on the syntax of array slices. Which work that way. Not 
inconsistent at all. It's also consistent with foreach(_; x..y).

Other than that, I realize it's not that good of a choice and it's not 
elegant at all. But I think it's still better than some of your horrible 
language crimes (including yours) that are being forced into D.

In any way, I think we should completely redesign the switch statement 
and give it a different syntax. No more C compatibility. No more Duff's 
device. We can keep the "old" switch statement for that.