DMD 1.032 and 2.016 releases

[Walter Bright]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> So basically, even if bug reports were opened against D 1.0 before D 1.0 
> was finalized, if fixing them involves a breaking change then we'll 
> never see them in D 1.0.  Is this correct?

The opEquals thing was not a bug, it was a change requested in the spec. 
Bugs are when the compiler does not operate according to the spec. Bugs 
in 1.0 will be fixed, and are being fixed. The only changes to the 1.0 
spec are clarifications.

> On a related note, there were some other issues fixed in D 2.0 but not 
> 1.0 that I don't believe were spec-related and which were also reported 
> against 1.0 before 2.0 was announced.  I can't recall what they were 
> offhand... IFTI issues perhaps?  What was the reasoning behind this 
> decision?

All the bugs fixed in 2.0 that also apply to 1.0 are folded back in to 
1.0. There are even bugs fixed in 1.0 that do not apply to 2.0. This is 
pretty clear from the changelog. I have been accused from time to time 
of abandoning 1.0, but this is simply not true and the changelog will 
show otherwise. I *am* trying to make it stable and reliable and 
suitable for production use. For those who need enhancements, 2.0 is the 
ticket.

I should also point out that D 1.0 has been getting new features that 
are not language changing ones, such as the recent addition of being 
able to generate library files directly, and improved symbolic debugging 
support.

D 1.0 also just got a completely new data flow analysis package, which 
increases the reliability and accuracy of the "statement not reached" 
kinds of diagnostics.

Where bug fixes in 1.0 have broken valid 1.0 code, such as the recent 
Tango breaks reported in this thread, those are entirely my fault and I 
apologize for that, and plan to get them fixed soon.