C++17

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 20:51:43 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
> 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.

Apparently no, they come here and cry and get nothing done.