If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?

[BCS]

In article <e8naf1$2g9g$2 at digitaldaemon.com>, kris says...
>
>Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> 
>
>Er, perhaps private should actually mean "private" before that happens? 
>And, package should mean "package", protected mean "protected" and so 
>on? It seems the whole visibility thing broke down completely fairly 
>recently. It used to work nicely!

How about a future freeze? I could live with D as it is now, at least in
concept. This would leave open fixing things that don't work and changing the
speck to match how it end up when stuff gets fixed (protections, etc.).

The only major breaking changes I would like to see center around imports and
const. For the most part, fixing the breaks caused by the first should be
simple. The second... well that might be better to do pre 1.0, it will be much
harder to do something like const-by-default later. Except for possibly those, I
think we have specks for all the features we need for 1.0.