Re: Isn't it about time for D3?

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

crimaniak wrote:

> If it depended on me, I would declare an embargo on language changes

that's why we (me, and others like me ;-) need D3. i don't need "better 
phobos", for example ('cause i'm trying to aboid using phobos anyway), but 
i really need named arguments (`foo(a:42, b:"hello")`). i want '=>' to be 
usable for any method/free function, not only for lambdas. i want $-expands 
in mixin strings. warnings on unary minus on byte/short types (do you know 
that D doesn't do int promition in this case, and C does? it bites me 
several times!). i want `foreach_reverse` to be replaced with `foreach 
(auto a; b; reverse)` (and *require* type, modifier or `auto` there). i 
want optional `ref` and `out` marks for function *calls*. i want... i want 
alot of things, i'm not even started yet. especially not started to talk 
about breaking changes. i cannot do that now (i have my private fork of 
dmd), 'cause i need to keep compatibility with vanilla, and i have zero 
hopes to see it all introduced in D2 (language stability, etc.). with D2, 
i'll have a chance to bring 'em on a table.