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

[Don]

Christian Kamm wrote:
> bearophile Wrote:
>> - making D2 fitter for the LLVM back-end;
> 
> I do not think this is necessary. LDC can implement most 
> of D1 just fine on top of LLVM. The omissions are minor:
> http://www.dsource.org/projects/ldc/wiki/Docs#Violationsofthespecification
> 
> Exposing particular features of the backend to the user 
> should be done through compiler-specific extensions. See
> http://www.dsource.org/projects/ldc/wiki/InlineAsmExpressions
> for an example.
> 
> Otherwise you'll make implementing a correct backend
> for D even harder.
> 

It's the other way around. We need to remove the places where DMD's 
backend is exposed in the language. It's reassuring that LDC has been 
made without finding many such cases.