Is it time for D 3.0?

[Chris R. Miller]

Paul D. Anderson wrote:
> I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might be of more general interest.
> 
> With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it time to move on to D version 3.0?
> 
> It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
> 
> Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
> 
> I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
> 
> Paul

I've always seen the library, be it Tango or Phobos, as separate and 
entirely different from the version of DMD.  I've always been under the 
impression that the Phobos/Tango resolution wouldn't really involve 
changing the compiler or language at all - although maybe with the 
unified runtime someone will take advantage of this and add features 
like crazy since there will only be one runtime to update instead of 
two.  I don't know about that point.

My point is that I don't think that we should start tying the libraries 
to the compiler.