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