An Anti-Big Feature Request

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"downs" <default_357-line at yahoo.de> wrote in message 
news:fjv3hq$15gd$1 at digitalmars.com...
>I have an Anti-Big Feature request; that is, a request against new 
>features.
>
> When this const issue will finally be solved to most peoples' 
> satisfaction,
> kindly consider inserting a period of consolidation.
>
> No more sudden, game-changing new super features for a while.
> Maybe fix some long-standing bugs.
> Maybe finally implement the generational GC.
> Maybe actually get DbC inheritance to work like it's supposed to.
> Maybe give memory back to the OS on occasion.
> Maybe revisit some 1.0 concepts and consider if they're still needed.
> Maybe add small things everybody can agree are good (return type deduction 
> comes to mind).
> Aim for low-hanging fruits, stuff we can agree on for once.
> How about a redundancy free import syntax?
>
> D's 2.0 series has been characterized by a series of fundamental changes 
> (const, closures),
> but what really makes a new release great is the polish. Small stuff 
> everybody looks forward to.
> Clean up the issues with the OMF tools? Maybe even consider switching to 
> PE?
> (Heresy, I know; however, it is fact that GDC has no problem with 
> megabyte-long symbol names)
>
> Oh, and please, delay the AST macros for a while. My head is still 
> spinning with closures. :)
> --downs

Agreed on (virtually) every count.

> PS:
>  Personal wish list:
>    * TRACED EXCEPTIONS ;____; yeah I wish

Huh!  Tango's had those for months.

Yeah.  What.