Wojciech Szęszoł has contributed a post describing his experience working on DStep for this year's GSoC. The post is at [1] and is on reddit at [2].

[1] https://dlang.org/blog/2016/09/09/gsoc-report-dstep/
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/51xk65/from_the_d_blog_gsoc_report_dstep/

On 9/9/16, Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> Wojciech Szęszoł has contributed a post describing his experience working on DStep for this year's GSoC. The post is at [1] and is on reddit at [2].

With regards to Sets missing from the language:

-----
struct Set(T)
{
    void[0][T] set;  // void[0] should not allocate (according to
ancient manuscripts)
    alias set this;

    void put ( ) ( auto ref T input )
    {
        this.set[input] = [];
    }
}

void main ( )
{
    Set!int set;

    set.put(1);
    set.put(5);

    assert(1 in set);
    assert(5 in set);
    assert(4 !in set);
}
-----

I'm not sure about any special syntax which is expected for languages which have built-in sets. It would probably be overkill to add syntax support, but I'm not sure how often people use set literals or not.

On Friday, 9 September 2016 at 17:48:10 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> With regards to Sets missing from the language:
> [...]

Sure, but even if it is simple, there should be some standardized way to do this. To not force the people to invent the set interface in every project again and again. And newcomers will look for it in the standard docs, and not in ancient manuscripts. I mean it isn't obvious that one should use void[0][T]...

> I'm not sure about any special syntax which is expected for languages which have built-in sets. It would probably be overkill to add syntax support, but I'm not sure how often people use set literals or not.

E.g. Python has build in literals for sets. C++ has sets in standard library. I see the points against adding something like this to the core of language, but it should be at least in the standard library.

On Friday, 9 September 2016 at 18:22:02 UTC, ciechowoj wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure about any special syntax which is expected for languages which have built-in sets. It would probably be overkill to add syntax support, but I'm not sure how often people use set literals or not.
>
> E.g. Python has build in literals for sets. C++ has sets in standard library. I see the points against adding something like this to the core of language, but it should be at least in the standard library.

You might find the following SO question informative.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7162274/why-is-d-missing-container-classes

On Friday, 9 September 2016 at 18:46:30 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> On Friday, 9 September 2016 at 18:22:02 UTC, ciechowoj wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure about any special syntax which is expected for languages which have built-in sets. It would probably be overkill to add syntax support, but I'm not sure how often people use set literals or not.
>>
>> E.g. Python has build in literals for sets. C++ has sets in standard library. I see the points against adding something like this to the core of language, but it should be at least in the standard library.
>
> You might find the following SO question informative.
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7162274/why-is-d-missing-container-classes

That was 5 years ago! Why do things move so slowly...