Standardization of D

[Don Clugston]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>
>>> I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar
>>> is predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss
>>> and desitions are taken by more than one only person.
>> Well if that is a standard, then lets NOT standardize D!!
>>
>> The parts of a "standard" I have any use for is the part that lets you
>> use it. I don't give a ___ how it's made (D seems to do well with King
>> Walter) just what it says. IIRC in mechanical systems, standards are
>> things like "threads are this shape" not the people that define them
>> (that is a standard committee or organization).
> 
> To be fair, a standard represents some sort of agreement among people,
> typically about a design.  And the usefulness of a standard is directly
> tied to how many people agree about that design--the most common way of
> reaching a consensus being a committee.  So the D language is 'standard'
> insofar as that we have all agreed to follow the design.  The situation
> is a bit unstable in that it relies on the receptiveness and the talents
> of one individual (ie. Walter), but fortunately he has proven himself up
> to the task so far.
> 
> 
> Sean

Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a 
consensus with himself. <g>
Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases.
So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases 
before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.