When is it time for a 1.0 feature freeze?

[Don Clugston]

Ivan Senji wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> Fredrik Olsson wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> I can also think of allowing properties as lvalue:
>>> foo.bar += 42;
>>>
>>> Array literals:
>>> bar ~= [1,5,42];
>>
>> The problem with that notation is that, in the general case, the type 
>> of the array cannot be guaranteed.  There have been a number of 
>> proposed syntaxes; AFAIK the best so far is
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/39125.html
> 
> I agree! That is the best proposal so far. I know Walter wants that to 
> be a 2.0 feature but it still doesn't make sense to me.
> Array and struct initializers are more fundamental feature than 
> templates, delegates, lazyness, even classes, and they are going to be 
> missing from D1.0? Crazy!

Those things would delay D1.0 by months. The idea is to declare D1.0 
quickly, and then move onto those things.