• Tony (10/10) Nov 25 2018 From std.compiler.D_major and std.compiler.D_minor I see that my
• Neia Neutuladh (8/16) Nov 25 2018 D_minor is 0 in both.

Tony <tonytdominguez aol.com> writes:

 From std.compiler.D_major and std.compiler.D_minor I see that my 
D language version is at 2.0 . But the version of gdc front-end I 
am using (via Debian default gdc package as of a few months ago) 
from std.compiler.version_major and std.compiler.version_minor is 
at 2.68 . That is a lot of bug fixes, with 0 changes to the 
language.

Actually, I realize that changes to the language are being 
reflected in compiler versions, not language versions. Just 
wondering why it was decided not to version the language (2.1, 
2.2, etc.)

Neia Neutuladh <neia ikeran.org> writes:

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:46:28 +0000, Tony wrote:
 From std.compiler.D_major and std.compiler.D_minor I see that my D
 language version is at 2.0 . But the version of gdc front-end I am using
 (via Debian default gdc package as of a few months ago) from
 std.compiler.version_major and std.compiler.version_minor is at 2.68.

D_minor is 0 in both.
version_minor is 68 in your version of GDC, which matches version_minor 
for DMD 2.068.*.

 That is a lot of bug fixes, with 0 changes to the language.

In semantic versioning terms, the product is D2 and the current version is 
83.0.0.

 Actually, I realize that changes to the language are being reflected in
 compiler versions, not language versions. Just wondering why it was
 decided not to version the language (2.1, 2.2, etc.)

There are feature changes with every major compiler release, so it would 
be pointless complexity to version the language separate from DMD.