What's left to do for a stable D2?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 1/22/10 17:21, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Jason House wrote:
>>> Jesse Phillips Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jason House wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andrei's finishing his last TDPL chapter, Sean is updating
>>>>> std.thread(?), and Walter's been fixing forward reference and CTFE
>>>>> bugs. What's left?
>>>> This page[1] has been getting regular updates, so it should do a good
>>>> job answering the question.
>>>>
>>>> 1. 
>>>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel#FutureDirections
>>>
>>> I believe most "future directions" will be D3 or beyond. I'm pretty
>>> certain that Andrei wants TDPL to match D2. All but one chapter has
>>> been written, and TDPL related bugs have gotten priority. There should
>>> be very few feature changes between now and D2 finalization.
>>>
>>> Andrei, Walter, Sean, can you comment?
>>
>> You mean the list "Known D2.0, Language"? Here's what I think (Walter is
>> the ultimate go-to person):
>>
>> # Operator overloading: opBinary!("+"), opUnary!("--"),
>> opIndexAssign!("*").
>>
>> D2
>>
>> # opDollar ( Bugzilla:3474).
>>
>> D2
>>
>> # Move complex and imaginary types from language into std.complex.
>>
>> D2
>>
>> # Fix the array stomping issue (T[new] was one proposal for this).
>>
>> We have a design that partially resolves it. Steve Schveighoffer has
>> implemented it.
>>
>> # Remove C-style declarations.
>>
>> I don't think they'll be removed, but TDPL doesn't mention them.
>>
>> # Remove typedef.
>>
>> D2
>>
>> # Remove struct initializers.
>>
>> Dunno
>>
>> # Remove floating point NCEG operators
>>
>> D2
>>
>> # Remove "length" from array index expressions ( Bugzilla:3474).
>>
>> Dunno. Hope so! TDPL won't mention it, so it's real bad if the feature
>> stays,
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> What about the uniform function call syntax ?

Far as I know it's already in, with bugs.

Andrei