On 12-01-2012 08:30, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 1/11/2012 11:16 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-01-11 21:34, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/11/2012 12:29 PM, Zachary Lund wrote:
D1 or D2 both don't have a very accurate definition. C and C++ has
several
hundred pages of specifications and while I'm hopefully not expecting
that, I do
want some certainty on what is *supposed* to happen.
There is also no versioning. D2 is definitely different from D1 in the
case that
it's not backwards compatible, but version for the actual example
implementation
isn't enough, especially when that implementation doesn't always do
what it's
supposed to do.
Please file bug reports for any errors/omissions in the specification on
bugzilla.
That's the whole point. It's not clear what the actual specification IS. Is it
DMD, dlang.org or TDPL?
The website is the spec. DMD is the reference instantiation of that spec.
TDPL is a re-framing of it.
Now, given that none of the three are perfect, discrepancies exist which
obviously lead to questions. That's where
bugzilla comes in to record and track the queue of issues to resolve among
them. Where there's issues, until it's been
examined, any of the parties could be at fault.
My 2 cents,
Brad
In all honesty, the website can barely be called a spec. Sure, it has
grammar and a few notes on semantics, but it's not even close to what
people expect from a programming language specification in this day and
age (see C, C++, C#, F#, etc specifications). I'd call it a guide at best.
If someone (probably among the DMD developers) was willing to flesh out
a clean and complete grammar definition for the language (preferably in
the form of one EBNF file, independent of doc format), I'd personally be
willing to put in effort to write a spec around it.
- Alex
