Do team have any roadmap for D? I mean Language + standard lib.

Suliman:

> Do team have any roadmap for D? I mean Language + standard lib.

Nope, sorry.

Bye,
bearophile

On Sunday, 21 July 2013 at 17:07:56 UTC, Suliman wrote:
> Do team have any roadmap for D? I mean Language + standard lib.

There's the "preapproved" tag for D's Bugzilla, which is used for issues that have been approved design-wise, but are not implemented yet:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?keywords=preapproved&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED

Not quite a roadmap, but for the standard library, there's the review queue:

http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue

On Sunday, 21 July 2013 at 17:07:56 UTC, Suliman wrote:
> Do team have any roadmap for D? I mean Language + standard lib.

There are the DIP's, which are not exactly a raodmap, but at least can give you a sense of what the outstanding issues are and what the possible solutions may be.

http://wiki.dlang.org/Category:DIP

--rt

On Sunday, 21 July 2013 at 19:43:56 UTC, Rob T wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 July 2013 at 17:07:56 UTC, Suliman wrote:
>> Do team have any roadmap for D? I mean Language + standard lib.
>
> There are the DIP's, which are not exactly a raodmap, but at least can give you a sense of what the outstanding issues are and what the possible solutions may be.
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Category:DIP
>
> --rt

http://wiki.dlang.org/DIPs contains some description.

On Sunday, 21 July 2013 at 17:07:56 UTC, Suliman wrote:
> Do team have any roadmap for D? I mean Language + standard lib.

No. This is becoming dated:

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel#Roadmap

Put it together with the other suggestions and you can kind of make out a direction.

Jesse Phillips:

> No. This is becoming dated:
>
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel#Roadmap

That list contains many "Remove x" and "Remove y" but most of those things seems to hang around nearly forever, they don't even yet generate deprecation messages... I disagree with this aspect of D development. It's confusing for D newbies, it's a mess, and I hate it. What's even worse is seeing Walter&Co spend time fixing creals and the like, that are supposed to be deprecated. Given the presence of a thousand open bug reports, it's just a matter of choosing to work on the bug reports that are about to not-deprecated features...

Lately lot of the D improvement comes from Kenji Hara :-) Kenji is also my best hope to finally see good tuples in D.

Bye,
bearophile

On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 01:15:16 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Lately lot of the D improvement comes from Kenji Hara :-) Kenji is also my best hope to finally see good tuples in D.

What are your issues with tuples? Not doubting, genuinely curious to hear your reasoning.

Joseph Rushton Wakeling:

> What are your issues with tuples? Not doubting, genuinely curious to hear your reasoning.

There's a significant need for a handy safe nice and very compact syntax to unpack (de-structure) tuples in assignments, foreach loops and function signatures (and switch cases), because the current syntax is not good enough. There are few other smaller related features that are handy, but they have a lower priority. Currently there is also a small syntax mess in tuple unpacking in foreach that needs to be fixed.

There are several past threads that show and discuss this topic well, that you can read. There is also a DIP created by Kenji, that he didn't update with the small suggestions and fixes suggested in a thread because the main syntax design of that DIP was found to be flawed. Successive suggestions for a workable syntax have gone nowhere.

Bye,
bearophile

On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 17:18:55 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
>
>> What are your issues with tuples? Not doubting, genuinely curious to hear your reasoning.
>
> There's a significant need for a handy safe nice and very compact syntax to unpack (de-structure) tuples in assignments, foreach loops and function signatures (and switch cases), because the current syntax is not good enough. There are few other smaller related features that are handy, but they have a lower priority. Currently there is also a small syntax mess in tuple unpacking in foreach that needs to be fixed.
>
> There are several past threads that show and discuss this topic well, that you can read. There is also a DIP created by Kenji, that he didn't update with the small suggestions and fixes suggested in a thread because the main syntax design of that DIP was found to be flawed. Successive suggestions for a workable syntax have gone nowhere.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

What became of using the comma operator with parens for tuples? That seemed to offer by far the most elegant option than some of the curly bracket messes.