Do we need a time-out in D evolution?

[Johan Granberg]

eao197 wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:04:05 +0400, Bill Baxter
> <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote:
> 
>> Of all the features under consideration for D, const is the one most
>> likely to have sweeping repercussions throughout the language.  So if D
>> is ever to get a serious const, it better happen sooner rather than
>> later, precisely so it can settle down and become stable.  The longer
>> Walter waits, the more libraries and code that will be affected and need
>> to change.  There are *no* other proposals on the table that I know  of
>> that will be require such major changes to the language.  None.  Const
>> is the big daddy.  Reflection things may be big in terms of
>> implementation work, but impact on backwards compatability should be
>> pretty much nil.
>>
>> So far Walter has spent, what, about a month focused on const?  If it
>> works out then great.  The issue will be settled, and no longer be a
>> cloud looming on the horizon.  If it doesn't, well then too the issue
>> will be settled, and no longer be a cloud looming on the horizon. Either
>> way, the big daddy change will be behind us.
> 
> My question was inspiried by const/final/invariant discussion. But my
> question is not about necessarity of adding const/final/invariant. So let
> take me some explanation.
> 
> At first, I'm C++ programmer and I like 'const' in C++. Sometimes it
> really helps to avoid bug (last case was a few days ago). Because of that
> I want to see consts in D (but current situation with
> const/final/invariant looks too complicated for me).
> 
> But the question isn't in const or AST macros or something else. The
> question is in incompatible changes to language after the short time since
> v.1.000. It is not good I think.
> 
> I think it always be something cool and desirable for including in
> language. Even if we don't know now what it will be. For example: why
> thought about const/final/invariant at Jan 2007 when v.1.000 was released?
> 
> Because of that must be some moment when Walter say: "We stop adding new
> features. Now we take two or three years of language stability and see
> what happens here". I thought v.1.014 is a good moment for that. But now
> we are talking about consts...
> 
> So my question is: "Is there a planed time-out in D evolution?"
> 

Didn't Walter say that he would branch the compiler into a current stable
(what we have now) and an experimental 2.0  compiler. If that is done isn't
that a clear signal to everyone that the 1.014 (or whatewer the version is
at the moment) compiler is the one to use for production code?