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

[Jason House]

Other, less technical items:
• A clear and "finalized" spec. If it isn't implemented, it should be yanked (or clearly marked as pending)
• A plan for library support. Not just Tango, but also Phobos. D1 Phobos could not evolve.

Don Wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 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.