July 22, 2006
I think the title says it all.
July 22, 2006
Walter Bright wrote:

> I think the title says it all.

My gut says no, the sole reason being that some non-trivial changes were made in .163 and they need some time to percolate... I think we need about two weeks with these changes to certify 0.163.  Personally, I really like 0.163, but don't feel comfortable making it 1.0 with new features in it.

Writing this was kinda painful, though, since I'd really like to see D 1.0 without delay.

-- 
~John Demme
me@teqdruid.com
http://www.teqdruid.com/
July 22, 2006
Walter Bright wrote:
> I think the title says it all.

The title? not really; is that a rehtorical question implying that it is, or are you asking whether it should be?

if the latter, then ... wouldn't it be such a rush to declare D1.0 right when new code-breaking changes were made?

July 22, 2006
Walter Bright wrote:
> I think the title says it all.

As part of the answer.. I've setup a 'flag' in bugzilla called 'd1.0blocker'.  If there's a bug you feel should be considered a blocker for 1.0, please set the '?' state.  Walter has been setup as the only person who can change the ? request to a + approved or - denied state.

I suggest that discussions for specific bugs and why they should or should not be blockers for 1.0 be taken to the .bugs newsgroup and not be part of this thread.

---

As to my opinion.  0.163 fixed one of the bigger outstanding issues, but I'd like to suggest that this release be given time to bake and that users be given some time to explore it for problems.  That will give you some time to work through some of the known bugs.

A gut feeling suggests that some time should be spent on linking and debugging related bugs.  Secondary to dmd and the 1.0ness of it, the docs have some gaps that have been pointed out (though not a whole lot of filed (thus trackable) about the website).  The abi is an example that comes to mind.

From a functionality standpoint things are about ready, it's time for the weeks of polishing.

Later,
Brad
July 22, 2006
On 2006-07-22 00:30:35 -0700, Walter Bright <newshound@digitalmars.com> said:

> I think the title says it all.

Me wants:

Array literals
initalizers
template libraries (dmd doesn't automatically compile in the appropriate files that are required for template generation.....)



July 22, 2006
"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e9sk71$2u86$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>I think the title says it all.

Do you intend to make any further changes that would break existing code?

Tony
Melbourne, Australia


July 22, 2006
Brad Roberts wrote:
> I suggest that discussions for specific bugs and why they should or should not be blockers for 1.0 be taken to the .bugs newsgroup and not be part of this thread.

It's really hard to say when a compiler is debugged or not. DMC++ has been around for 23 years and bugs still crop up in it.

Declaring the compiler "1.0" won't impede the regular flow of bug fixes and updates, what it does is say the feature set is 1.0 and the compiler is usable.
July 22, 2006
Tony wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e9sk71$2u86$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> I think the title says it all.
> 
> Do you intend to make any further changes that would break existing code?

Not to anything starting with "1.", unless it is to fix a clear implementation bug. As D evolves, it's certainly possible that "2." may break existing code in small ways, as other languages do.

What I expect is that the "1.xx" series will focus on stability and bug fixes, while "2.xx" will be looking forward to being a significant upgrade in features.
July 22, 2006
Walter Bright wrote:
> Brad Roberts wrote:
>> I suggest that discussions for specific bugs and why they should or should not be blockers for 1.0 be taken to the .bugs newsgroup and not be part of this thread.
> 
> It's really hard to say when a compiler is debugged or not. DMC++ has been around for 23 years and bugs still crop up in it.
> 
> Declaring the compiler "1.0" won't impede the regular flow of bug fixes and updates, what it does is say the feature set is 1.0 and the compiler is usable.

Agreed.. 1.0-ness is most about feature stability, but not exclusively. 
 That's one reason I suggested to take specific bug aspect out of this thread and over to .bugs.  Let this one stay more feature focused.

Later,
Brad
July 22, 2006
Walter Bright wrote:
> I think the title says it all.

What about standardizing the ABI?

-- 
Kirk McDonald
Pyd: Wrapping Python with D
http://dsource.org/projects/pyd/wiki
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home