Criteria for 1.0 (was: Re: If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?)

[Tony]

"Walter Bright" <newshound at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:e8n9mi$2flp$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> Kyle Furlong wrote:
>> *Standing Ovation*
>
> Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make
> it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in
> before 1.0.
>
> So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not
> like D will stop undergoing improvements.

I've taken the liberty of making this a new thread as the old one was 
getting a little long.

Walters post raises the issue of exactly what criteria should be used to 
determine when D reaches a state suitable for a 1.0 release.

My personal take is that it should be a 1.0 release when Walter believes 
that all of the language changes which are expected to break existing code 
have been made.  For example, if he expects to add any further reserved 
words, reserve them (even if not presently implemented) prior to the 1.0 
release.  Also, any change which alters the semantics of an existing feature 
and thus breaks existing code should be made prior to 1.0.

This still leaves bug fixing and additional language features which don't 
break existing code for post-1.0 releases.

Tony
Melbourne, Australia