When is it time for a 1.0 feature freeze?

[Ivan Senji]

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 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

I agree! That is the best proposal so far. I know Walter wants that to 
be a 2.0 feature but it still doesn't make sense to me.
Array and struct initializers are more fundamental feature than 
templates, delegates, lazyness, even classes, and they are going to be 
missing from D1.0? Crazy!

These days each D project I start has
T[] array(T)(T[] x...)
{
    return x.dup;
}

right after the module statement and that should be an indication that 
something is wrong. Although the array template fixes (kind of) the 
array initialization problem, there is nothing that can be done for 
structs (not counting static opCall as a solution).