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

[Steve Teale]

Don's list is:

> 
> - 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.
> 

I think that a list like this is a very positive step, particularly given its source - thanks Don. However, I think that it should be split in two so that there is a compiler list, and a library list. It seems quite reasonable for the library to lag the compiler.

Possibly at the top of the compiler list should be the question of a formal definition of D2. Appropriate compiler support for multithreading seems like a must. The operator overloading issue should be judged by the simple question "does this change make D into E".

At the top of the library list should be an arbitrary resolution of the ongoing Phobos/Tango hiatus. I have no idea who can make such an arbitrary decision, since the inner processes of D decision making are opaque. As I've suggested before, Phobos could simply be renamed as the 'D Standard Library'. That should do the trick.

Steve