DMD 1.030 and 2.014 releases

[Robert Fraser]

Chris Wright wrote:
> So you'd accept added keywords such as __traits, I take it? Though 
> invariant would be a pretty controversial one to add.

Well, __traits is okay because it isn't commonly used as an identifier. 
But I'd prefer "macro" be changed to something like "__macro" in a 
backport (people might be using that as a variable name). Again, just 
personal opinion, that stuff doesn't matter too much.

> I think a fair number of people would be perfectly happy with a D2 
> branch minus const. I mean, what else was added that's not to love? 
> Besides instability, that is. But the only thing preventing people from 
> using most of these libraries with dmd2.014 is probably const.

IMO, pure and nothrow, too. I think it's a good idea but it requires too 
much library support (i.e. there's no way to write a standard lib that 
would work well under D1.0 and D1.1 if the latter had pure and nothrow). 
Also, overload sets (great idea, but very much breaking).

I think there's at least one naysayer for every D2 feature, so you can't 
please everybody. I think whoever creates the branch needs to go 
mini-Walter and decide for him/her self which features to back port -- 
the D community will be richer with it than without it.