backporting features to D1

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > Walter Bright, el 11 de octubre a las 12:51 me escribiste:
> >> Bill Baxter wrote:
> >>> But features that have
> >>> been tested in D2 and which are backwards compatible with D1?  Why
> >>> would anyone be against those?
> >> Because then you lose the definition of what is D 1.0. I believe there is
> >> considerable value not only in a stable compiler, but a stable language
> >> definition.
> >
> > What's wrong with calling this new language D 1.1 for example?
> Nothing except I don't have a staff of hundreds to test and maintain 3
> versions of D.

Certainly understandable.  I wonder if someone could take GDC or LDC and the D1
and D2 front end sources, if they really wanted to, and create an unofficial D1.1
out of these?  If there's enough demand, this project, and a similar one for D2.1
to bridge D2 -> D3, might be worthwhile.

Note that I am *not* lobbying for a D1.1, and I personally am enjoying the
bleeding edge with D2 since most the code I write is just for internal use anyhow.
 I'm just suggesting how D1.1 could be done *if* it is done at all, rather than
implying that I think it's a particularly good idea.