What's left to do for a stable D2?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:21:09 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> Jason House wrote:
>> Jesse Phillips Wrote:
>>
>>> Jason House wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrei's finishing his last TDPL chapter, Sean is updating  
>>>> std.thread(?), and Walter's been fixing forward reference and CTFE  
>>>> bugs. What's left?
>>> This page[1] has been getting regular updates, so it should do a good
>>> job answering the question.
>>>
>>> 1.  
>>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel#FutureDirections
>>  I believe most "future directions" will be D3 or beyond. I'm pretty  
>> certain that Andrei wants TDPL to match D2. All but one chapter has  
>> been written, and TDPL related bugs have gotten priority. There should  
>> be very few feature changes between now and D2 finalization.
>>  Andrei, Walter, Sean, can you comment?
>
> You mean the list "Known D2.0, Language"? Here's what I think (Walter is  
> the ultimate go-to person):
>
> # Operator overloading: opBinary!("+"), opUnary!("--"),  
> opIndexAssign!("*").
>
> D2
>
> # opDollar ( Bugzilla:3474).
>
> D2
>
> # Move complex and imaginary types from language into std.complex.
>
> D2
>
> # Fix the array stomping issue (T[new] was one proposal for this).
>
> We have a design that partially resolves it. Steve Schveighoffer has  
> implemented it.
>
> # Remove C-style declarations.
>
> I don't think they'll be removed, but TDPL doesn't mention them.
>
> # Remove typedef.
>
> D2
>
> # Remove struct initializers.
>
> Dunno
>
> # Remove floating point NCEG operators
>
> D2
>
> # Remove "length" from array index expressions ( Bugzilla:3474).
>
> Dunno. Hope so! TDPL won't mention it, so it's real bad if the feature  
> stays,
>

What about propagating qualifiers to the return type (i.e. inout)?  I  
think that is a major change and is in the book.  It's currently partially  
implemented, but it does not work.

-Steve