An Anti-Big Feature Request

[Sean Kelly]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "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. 

I'm looking into giving memory back to the OS as well.  It will take 
some re-engineering of the GC, but it seems quite doable.


Sean