Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Don" <nospam at nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:he0d7l$34k$1 at digitalmars.com...
> The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008).
> A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time.
> Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many 
> people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think 
> it's a great release.
>
> The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are:
>
> 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[])
> 370  Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration.
> 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a template, 
> from another module
>
> but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from being 
> recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second two 
> bugs).
>
> I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors 
> which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with 
> CTFE.
>
> If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now 
> would be a great time to say why.

The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use tango, 
any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which wouldn't 
make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with "stable" releases of 
things.