C++17

[rsw0x via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 20:31:33 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 09:00:17 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
>> The response from the D community seems to be an overwhelming 
>> "It's fine as is" when it's obviously not. Which is making me 
>> question sinking more time into D if there actually is no 
>> cohesive plan to make D an actual C++ competitor rather than a 
>> toy language as it currently stands.
>
> I can't take any of this seriously as long as ConcernedDev1950 
> do not provide any PR.

ConcernedDev1950 will go use a language that doesn't require them 
to write the standard library.