Developing a plan for D2.0: Getting everything on the table

[Leandro Lucarella]

Don, el 14 de julio a las 11:53 me escribiste:
> A lot of frustration has been expressed on the newgroup about lack of a clear 
> public plan for D2.0. I don't think we're in a position to create a road-map. 
> But, let's at least agree on which countries we'll probably visit before we 
> reach our final destination <g>.
> 
> Everyone knows there are a multitude of significant bugs in Bugzilla, and most 
> people have their pet list of minor language warts they hope will be removed. 
> But there's also some earthquake issues that have huge implications. It's very 
> disconcerting when some of them are introduced in a casual manner. I think it 
> would reduce a lot of frustation in the community if we compiled an official 
> list of the major ones. Here's a few I came up with:
> 
> - Multithreading (I): Will Bartosz's proposal be accepted (in some form)?
> - Multithreading (II): Will some form of message parsing be included?
> - Operator overloading. "completely redone" (?)
> - opImplicitCast
> - is T[new] still going to happen?
> - Phobos I/O -- Andrei has stated that he wants to completely rewrite it.
> - Unimplemented features -- safe D, contract inheritance.
> - Andrei once said that he wants to get rid of new (!)
> - The Tango license issue needs to be sorted to the extent that Andrei and 
> Walter feel they can safely look at the Tango code; OR we can decide that's not 
> going to happen, and change the strategy for the Tango/Phobos relationship.

> The stuff on this list will either be implemented, or dropped. New
> things could be added to the list. But we can gauge our progress towards
> D2.0 by how rapidly the list shrinks with time.

I think DIPs can be helpful for this. You can track what of these features
are dropped or accepted.

> Which other major issues have I missed? Things which, if they happen, will 
> probably require major spec changes, major library redesign, or break large 
> amounts of code. Let's get everything on the table.

There was a thread started by Andrei called -nogc that ended up suggesting
some wrapping arround references that can be redefined to implmement
reference counting or other tricks. Same for library implementation of
associative and dynamic arrays. Will that happen?

I don't think this will break anything, but it's a big change in both
library and compiler (I think).

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no pain you are receding
A distant ship, smoke on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying.