When is it time for a 1.0 feature freeze?

[Stewart Gordon]

Fredrik Olsson wrote:
<snip>
> I can also think of allowing properties as lvalue:
> foo.bar += 42;
> 
> Array literals:
> bar ~= [1,5,42];

The problem with that notation is that, in the general case, the type of 
the array cannot be guaranteed.  There have been a number of proposed 
syntaxes; AFAIK the best so far is

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/39125.html

So your answer to the subject of this thread is "Once these features 
have been added", right?  Could be a long time.... :-)

<snip>
> Those and the lack of sets and ranges are top on my list. The small 
> stuff that can reduce code size in half. The only 100% foolproof way to 
> write bug-free code is; not to write any. So the closer to no code, the 
> better :).

How does not writing code equate to writing code?

But you remind me of this:

http://www.stevemcconnell.com/cctune.htm

(See from "A fast program is just as important as a correct one--False!" 
downwards.)

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.