On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 05:02:47 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:49:00 +0000, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 at 15:12:38 UTC, ketmar wrote:
what should i check to see what is *really* allowed, why two
storage
classes allowed with one combination and not allowed with
another?
Well, you can look at the compiler's source...
But I'm sure this is not the answer you wanted ;-)
sure. now i'm completely lost. i shouldn't use DMD to find out
things,
yet i have to use DMD to find out things.
Im my defense, you asked what _is_ really allowed, not what
_should_ be allowed...
ok, let's be serious. what i'm trying to say is that there
should be not
only grammar with comments inside it here and there, but the
document
that explains "what is what", what's compatible with what and
so on. the
"specs" in the meaning that one can point to it and say: "this
is how it
is supposed to be. now fix your code". or "now let's fix the
compiler."
the specs where no "undefined behavior" words are used, and no
"it's left
to compiler implementer to decide". (but "look at DMDFE source"
is
allowed ;-).
Brian Schott did a lot of work finding inconsistencies and
ambiguities in the grammar, and I believe his DConf talk was
partially about it.
