standardization of D

[Georg Wrede]

David B. Held wrote:
> Peter C. Chapin wrote:
> 
>> [...]
>> Ideally once 1.0 was released there should have been a fork in the 
>> release schedule for D. Bug fixes to 1.0 could be provided separately 
>> from language enhancements leading toward 2.0 (or whatever). That way 
>> people interested in coding to the 1.0 "standard" could get a fixed 
>> compiler without the "clutter" of new features.
> 
> This is a pretty important point, and more people should complain about 
> this.  It does dilute the utility of having a 1.0 release.

There should also be a clear separation in the documentation!!

The D documentation doesn't seem to care what things are 1.0 and what 
"post-1.0". Imagine a programming team trying to conform to 1.0. While 
the compiler can of course barf on too-new things, the programmers have 
a hard time learning what is and what isn't 1.0.

Of course, we could deliver two separate html trees with DMD, but 
obviously the bloat is unacceptable.

Therefore, IMHO, the second-best would be to have the 1.0 html as a 
separate zip, downloadable from DM, -- and adequately advertise it on 
the site.


To help the programming teams in not reading the wrong version (1.0 vs. 
the current), the downloadable 1.0 should have a pale yellow background 
color, as in old paper. Then, e.g. somebody just quickly glancing at a 
colleagues screen (say, to help him understand something), it would 
stand clearly out whether we are looking at 1.0 or the current doc.

All it takes is to change dmd/html/d/style.css on the third line from

   background: white;

to

   background: #ffffc0;

and zip the 1.0 html to the server.


Oh, and of course the *current* doc shoud mention the 1.0 docs being 
available.

---

I wanted to keep this *simple enough to actually become reality now*, 
given Walter's limited time. Obviously a better solution (and one that 
we'll eventually need) would be to have the background with a pale 
yellow D-1.0 watermark-like text, but first things first!