DMD 1.030 and 2.014 releases

[Chris Wright]

Robert Fraser wrote:
> 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.

It's another point of friction; ideally, anything that compiles in D1 
will compile in D1.1. (Dunno yet how serious I am about forking, unless 
someone offers to help. In that case, I am quite serious.)

>> 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).

Pure and nothrow aren't implemented yet, I think, so it'd be easy to 
exclude them.

I agree with Fritz's assessment on overload sets, unless you can come up 
with a sample of code that overload sets breaks.