Any compelling reason why not? I know that everyone (including me) wants more features, more improvements, etc., but nothing about calling it 1.0 will prevent that from happening.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Any compelling reason why not? I know that everyone (including me) wants more features, more improvements, etc., but nothing about calling it 1.0 will prevent that from happening.

Are you talking about DMD or D?

I think that all *D* needs is some editing of the spec (disambiguating, typo corrections, etc.) A feature freeze NOW wouldn't bug me a bit.

DMD on the other hand has a ways to go. I've got a few pet peeves* and there is a bunch of known issues under dstress and the issue list.

Lastly after D is declared 1.0 RCn, DMD should be confirmed to actually (for the most part) implement it correctly before it is declared 1.0. For that I'm thinking of a systematic sweep of the spec where test cases are generated for as many parts as can be managed. Each test case should be confirmed to work or be tagged as a correct program (a.k.a a known issue).

Submitting these to dstress might be a good idea also.

*> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=52

Walter Bright wrote:
> Any compelling reason why not? I know that everyone (including me) wants more features, more improvements, etc., but nothing about calling it 1.0 will prevent that from happening.

Please stop teasing us with these silly questions.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Any compelling reason why not? I know that everyone (including me) wants more features, more improvements, etc., but nothing about calling it 1.0 will prevent that from happening.

Um, it ought to.

I think you ought to branch.  Branch off 1.0 with a feature freeze, and also an "experimental" new-features new-stuff branch.  Rather than rejecting all new features, put them in the experimental branch.  That branch then later becomes 1.1 or 2.0 (depending on how you choose to number, etc).  That way, people who just want a stable software platform can choose 1.0, and those who live on the bleeding edge can choose the experimental branch.

 - Gregor Richards

Gregor Richards wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Any compelling reason why not? I know that everyone (including me) wants more features, more improvements, etc., but nothing about calling it 1.0 will prevent that from happening.
> 
> Um, it ought to.
> 
> I think you ought to branch.  Branch off 1.0 with a feature freeze, and also an "experimental" new-features new-stuff branch.  Rather than rejecting all new features, put them in the experimental branch.  That branch then later becomes 1.1 or 2.0 (depending on how you choose to number, etc).  That way, people who just want a stable software platform can choose 1.0, and those who live on the bleeding edge can choose the experimental branch.
> 
>  - Gregor Richards
Make 1.1 the experimental branch, and save 1.2 for the next release branch.  The same even/odd thing that the Linux kernel used to use.  It worked well there, arguably better than the current approach.  But think about the release numerations. If it's a string, then use 1.1.001 for the first experimental version.  If it's a float, think about switching to a string.  An alternate choice would be to consider it a struct with three fields (ubyte?) called: version, branch, and subversion.

I agree with Gregor Richards about branching if you are chomping at the bit to add some hot new features.

However, IMO, the biggest problem I see with DMD in its current state is that IFTI is not finished yet.  Since IFTI will have such a large impact on library development, I think completing it should be high on the priority list.

-Craig

Walter Bright wrote:
> Any compelling reason why not? I know that everyone (including me) wants more features, more improvements, etc., but nothing about calling it 1.0 will prevent that from happening.

Why not: IFTI needs polish, array literals are just too valuable (although IFTI helps here too), Phobos needs a std.array (templatized!), need to resolve current enhancement/feature requests and suggestions -- aka, any new requests from "This Point" forward are tagged for the next release, but anything currently on the table needs to get resolved to one of "not going to happen", "will happen and here's how", or "deferred to next release because it just can't be done and here's why".

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

Gregor Richards wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Any compelling reason why not? I know that everyone (including me) wants more features, more improvements, etc., but nothing about calling it 1.0 will prevent that from happening.
> 
> Um, it ought to.
> 
> I think you ought to branch.  Branch off 1.0 with a feature freeze, and also an "experimental" new-features new-stuff branch.  Rather than rejecting all new features, put them in the experimental branch.  That branch then later becomes 1.1 or 2.0 (depending on how you choose to number, etc).  That way, people who just want a stable software platform can choose 1.0, and those who live on the bleeding edge can choose the experimental branch.
> 
>  - Gregor Richards
I agree. We don't want to stop getting new features just so that *other* people can have the "stable" version they've always wanted.

I think there's nothing outstandingly wrong with DMD 0.166 that prevents it being RC 1.0.

Cheers,

Reiner

Walter Bright wrote:
> Any compelling reason why not? I know that everyone (including me) wants more features, more improvements, etc., but nothing about calling it 1.0 will prevent that from happening.

Something I've been wondering: "but nothing about calling it 1.0 will prevent that from happening." But then what is the point of calling a 1.0 , will there be a branch or some other effect? Or it's just marketing?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Hi Walter,
I think your question  should be dedicated to the library developers,
because :
D needs more stable libraries.
Library development needs a feature freeze so ask them what is needed to
create well designed long living libs. Implement it and name it 1.0.

Bjoern


"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> schreef in bericht news:edctpl$12jt$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Any compelling reason why not? I know that everyone (including me) wants more features, more improvements, etc., but nothing about calling it 1.0 will prevent that from happening.