Isn't it about time for D3?

[Liam McGillivray via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 00:27:06 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> ..and it actually should be D1.5, not D3. ;-) 'cause D3 implies 
> even more features, and i feel that the way to get The Perfect 
> D (sorry! ;-) is trying to cut all the features that aren't 
> strictly necessary (including fat-free stdlib too: i see stdlib 
> as a part of the language).

D1.5? What?  This has nothing to do with D1.  D3 would be forked 
from D2.  The reason that it would be considered a major version 
is because it introduces breaking changes.  As far as I know, D2 
hasn't been allowed breaking changes since stabilization June 
2010.