1.0 ??

Walter Bright newshound at digitalmars.com
Sun Nov 5 23:01:27 PST 2006


Don Clugston wrote:
> I think that's an excellent idea. If, as Walter has said, "1.0" is an 
> arbitrary line in the sand, tying it to a particular date gives a 
> rationale for associating a name to a particular release. If we can say 
> "a DMD 1.0 release will exist on January 1, 2007" (or at least, 1.0 RC 
> 1), we'd gain a lot of focus.
> 
> I thought we were really close to a 1.0 release at 0.166, but starting 
> with the array literals in 0.167, a stable release suddenly seems a very 
> long way off.
> On the positive side, I think that array literals and variadic templates 
> were the two major 2.0 features which were likely to render a lot of 
> library code obselete.
> 
> We should choose a date and stick to it. Remove the angst.

Sounds good to me, and Jan 1, 2007 is a great date to pick.

I've been playing a lot with the template tuple thing. It flings open 
some doors pretty wide to a great simplification of library code. That's 
why I put a priority on it. I've been fiddling with some of Andrei 
Alexandrescu's Loki C++ template code, and some of it shrinks by an 
*order of magnitude* with language support for tuples. Not only that, it 
becomes much more understandable <g>.

Another goal of mine is support for a Spirit-like library. I used to 
think Spirit was of only marginal use, but I am more and more thinking 
that, from the right point of view, it can be core to making some 
ubiquitous and very powerful library tools.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list