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

[Christian Kamm]

Don Wrote:
> 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.

I agree. From my point of view naked functions and inline assembly - and 
the associated assumption that we have direct control over the emitted 
assembly - have caused the most issues. It seems to be appropriate for D 
though.

There's also the D calling convention; we've pretty much got it covered
now, but there's a reason GDC still uses the C one instead.

Finally, some of the semantic checking in DMD is done in the backend 
instead of the frontend. These have always caused trouble until
we patched the frontend or inserted similar checking into our own
backend code. Unfortunately we haven't kept a list of these around
(or opened tickets for them).