JMNorris wrote:
> "Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74@yeah.who.co.uk> wrote in news:op.t5u0eef7xikks4@starquake.cybernetics:
> 
>> Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is
>> concensus. Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't
>> put a definite  year
>> to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.
> 
> Maybe they're hoping to finish in time to have a C++0x10?  If so, they may not make it. :-)

I think they're still working on a pre-2010 timeframe, but they had to cut a bunch of stuff to make it.  I believe the standardization process they work with requires about a year of voting and such to finalize things, so they've actually got to be done fairly soon.


Sean

Walter Bright wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
>> Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a consensus with himself. <g>
>> Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases.
>> So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.
> 
> D1 is complete as far as I'm concerned, except for bug fixes and changes that improve the compiler without changing the spec.
> 
> The current plan is for D2 to be finalized sometime in the fall.
Will that include most of the things in the conference paper? Or will it be less ambitious?

Anyway, it would be good to put this on the 'futures' page on the spec. If the D1 futures page simply said something like:

"D1 is complete, except for bug fixes and changes that improve the compiler without changing the spec. From April 2007, all language enhancements were made to D2".
then you'd never have to change it again. (Up to now, it's been a page with a spectacularly poor record of prediction <g>).
And for D2, you could provide a link to the conference paper.