Short list with things to finish for D2

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s article
> dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s
> > article
> >> 6. There must be many things I forgot to mention, or that cause
> > grief to
> >> many of us. Please add to/comment on this list.
> >> Andrei
> >
> > I assume we're mostly talking about spec stuff, not implementation
> > stuff.  Nonetheless, to the extent that the GC API is considered
> > part of the language spec, I think we need to fix that.
> >
> > 1.  My precise heap scanning patch has some ripple effects into the
> > GC API and could affect what is done with the `new` operator.
> > Therefore, we might not want to postpone this until after D2 is
> > final.
> >
> > 2.  We should probably tighten up the spec to make sure that a
> > moving, fully precise, etc. GC can be implemented at some point in
> > the future without modifying the spec after D2 is declared gold.
> I think you can safely work on that asynchronously. TDPL won't include a
> "GC API Reference" - for that kind of stuff I think it's ok to refer to
> the online documentation.
> Thanks for working on this!
> Andrei

Can you clarify the higher level development model, then?

1.  Are we departing from the D1 model and allowing changes to Phobos after the
language spec is declared final?  If so, can those changes be breaking, at least
at the binary level?

2.  Are we punting on the GC API and allowing it to be implementation defined?  I
thought this API was supposed to be stable and allow for swapping GC
implementations at link time.  Then again, I think it's actually a bad idea to
create such a stable API, since different GC implementations will require
different configuration, meta-data, etc. and this is just a fact of life.  Most
user code will not interact directly with the GC, but will use `new`, builtin
arrays, etc.