Which language constructs could be done as a library if we accept some breaking changes?

[Guillaume Piolat]

On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 20:47:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> If there was a majority in favour of D3, with breaking changes, 
> and a strong focus on meta-programming, then it would make a 
> lot of sense to streamline the language.

I just don't understand the premise of a "D3".
We don't need "D3" to have breaking changes, we now have a 
**better** system with -preview/-revert.

Considering D2 approximately halved the userbase, talks about 
"D3" should really be talks about new -preview flags. The idea 
that a magical breaking change  fixes the langage without a nice 
upgrade path is magical thinking, because it would be strictly 
**worse** than what we have today.