Release D 2.072.0

[Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Thursday, 3 November 2016 at 15:51:22 UTC, Steven 
Schveighoffer wrote:
>
> Any cycles that are "newly discovered" were already there. What 
> was happening is that the runtime did not detect the cycle, and 
> was arbitrarily choosing an order for initializing these 
> modules. Either a) the arbitrary order happened to be right, or 
> b) the order didn't matter. Most of the time it's b, because 
> most static ctors don't depend on externally initialized items.

My question is: any cycle is invalid?

-Johan