Is D 0.163 D 1.0?

[Oskar Linde]

Dave skrev:
> Don Clugston wrote:
>> Georg Wrede wrote:
>>> John Demme wrote:
>>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think the title says it all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone recommended that 0.163 should be labelled RC1?  I think this
>>>> would be fair- hopefully it would focus attention from language 
>>>> changes to
>>>> finding major bugs/flaws and the "Shop's closed- let's clean up and 
>>>> ship
>>>> it" mentality.  It would tell people who are maintaining libraries to
>>>> bother to update them to 0.163 so they will work with 1.0.
>>>
>>> This sounds quite reasonable.
>>
>> I agree. 0.163 seems like a solid feature base to build 1.0 libraries 
>> around. But I wonder how long Walter will be able to restrain himself 
>> from adding new features; I think he'd get bored after a dozen 
>> releases containing nothing but bug fixes. <g>
> 
> I'm actually hoping that one of the reasons for releasing 1.0 now is 
> because Walter wants to get to work on 2.0 <g> (Not that 1.0 isn't good 
> enough, just that it's fun to "play" :))
> 
> I'm curious - are there really any "show stopping" type bugs out there 
> for v1.0? By show stopping I mean bugs that completely prevent a given 
> design pattern allowed by the current language spec.

I'd say the implicit function template instantiation limitations are 
somewhat show stopping:

1. IFTI doesn't work for member functions.
2. Partial specialization doesn't work with IFTI.
3. Partial template instantiation isn't allowed with IFTI.
4. More IFTI limitations...

Walter has acknowledged that number 2 is a bug. I don't know of any 
workaround for number 1. Those are all hampering library development, 
which IMHO would qualify as show stoppers for a 1.0 status.

Of course, the most important thing is to make clear which limitations 
are meant to remain and which are to be classified as bugs.

/Oskar