Jarrett Billingsley wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Ellery > Newcomer<[email protected]> wrote: >> Jarrett Billingsley wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Daniel >>> Keep<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Sorry, but you can't seriously claim D is still easy to implement whilst >>>> .stringof still exists in its current form. :P >>> Oh, .stringof is nothing compared to the complexity added by string mixins >>> ;) >>> >>> Or some of the scarier parsing issues. (Type).Identifier and the (int >>> x) { return x + 5; } delegates are two things that come to mind.. >> What's up with the last two? I haven't quite gotten to them in semantic >> yet, but I didn't notice any problems in parsing them > > (Type).Ident is one case of many in the D grammar
Well, you've just sapped my resolve to continue. You wouldn't happen to have a list of these things somewhere, would you? Come to think of it, am I missing anything about stringof? It looks to me like contradictory requirements; on one hand spec mandates no semantic analysis, on the other you need to determine if stringof is a field reachable by dot. And the compiler goes with the latter.
