d future or plans for d3

[Vladimir Panteleev]

On Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 23:02:17 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> It is an unilateral improvement if both options are kept open. 
> I don't see a reason to cease support for the current GC model.

I believe that currently the plan does not include providing this 
choice.

> Furthermore, a generational GC performs much better than a 
> simple mark-sweep GC.

Unless you change the way references work, generational and 
"precise" aspects of a GC are orthogonal. Also, D can't have a 
completely precise GC as long as it has unions and can pass 
managed memory to C code.