On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Ellery Newcomer<[email protected]> wrote:
> Wrong. Both are perfectly valid declarations (and did you miss my note? > the compiler *IS* interpreting the second as a declaration). > Okay, consider the rule declarator, which is (or should, if the grammar > wants to correctly reflect what the compiler is doing) defined like so > > Declarator: > BasicType2opt Identifier DeclaratorSuffixesopt > BasicType2opt ( Declarator ) DeclaratorSuffixesopt Ah, fuck. I can't believe D still accepts those. All the ambiguity probably goes away without them, huh.
