Reply to %u,

> I hold my breath!
> Do you really declare that the Chomsky hierarchy is wrong---missing
> a complete type of infinite languages since ages?

As the Chomsky hierarchy uses names like "type-n /grammar/" it would seem that it deals with syntax. The use of gotos vs. break is a semantic issues and as such has no barring on syntax classifications

Warren D Smith wrote:
> Unfortunately the response to my "suggested improvements to D,"
> oddly, was not uniformly "of course we'll do that immediately."
> 
> Let me reiterate my case.  First, D'ers have already agreed by consensus to add
> IEEE-float hooks to handle NaNs, rounding, etc.
> Good.  That means you already have admitted you
> agree with my philosophy that the language
> must provide the underlying power of the machine (for any feature
> that a large number of machine hardwares now supply) to the user.
> Not deny it.

Indeed, it's always been part of the philosophy of D (that's why D supports 80-bit reals, for example).
About six months ago, Walter said that he does intend to add more intrinsics, but that it's a difficult thing to do, so it's been pushed down on the list of priorities. Don't worry, it will happen eventually. But certainly not immediately.

Don Clugston wrote:
> Rotations without carry would be very nice.

Rotations without carry are available if the compiler recognizes the common idioms:

gcc recognizes:
unsigned int foo(unsigned int u)
{
	return u << 16 | u >> 16;
}

(will make a rotate instruction, if possible)