On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:39:53 -0500, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/02/14 22:12, Frank Bauer wrote:
Excellent idea. All the cries (including mine) for a non-GC D
would stop at once.
I hope so, but I doubt it. Instead the criticisms will start focusing
on the lack of library functionality and the potential for a
Phobos/Tango style split between regular D and the minimal non-GC D.
I don't think so. Any valid minimal D is valid D. Tango vs. Phobos was a
completely different incompatible runtime, and then later, a difference
between D1 and D2.
-Steve
