ISO D

Seb via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Aug 17 04:43:09 PDT 2016


On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 11:34:01 UTC, eugene wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 10:47:35 UTC, qznc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:02:42 UTC, eugene wrote:
>>> will ISO D be in future or not?
>>
>> What would be the benefits?
>
> unified language standard?

While the spec might not be 100% perfect, it tries to be a 
unified language standard. After all D already has four different 
compilers: DMD, LDC, GDC, and SDC.

So imho the best thing to do is to improve the "dirty" bits in 
the spec that have hidden assumptions or aren't clear enough, but 
that's a steady process which is done without an ISO spec. 
Besides who do you prefer to have control over the language: the 
D Foundation or an international company (which you have to keep 
on your payroll)?


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list