On 2012-04-04 17:53:24 +0000, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<[email protected]> said:
But yes, I think the issue really becomes, we need to look at context
when deciding the semantic meaning of a symbol. I don't think this
violates the context-free grammar, because wouldn't this only come
into play at the semantic level? Not a compiler writer/hacker, so I
don't know.
You'd need a whole lot of context.
Let's say I write:
.a.b.c.d = .e.f.g.h;
Can you tell me which letters are the name of a package/module, and
which are the name of something else? It could be this:
module a.b;
struct c { static int d; }
module e.f.g;
int h;
or it could be this:
module a;
struct b { struct c { struct d { static void opAssign(int); } } }
module e;
struct f { enum g { h = 1 } }
or a multitude of other variants. If you can't know by looking at the
assignment above, how will the parser know?
Fully qualified names really need to refer to a single thing.
Say you wanted to create a package.d file directly for the whole
package std, what should be done for those?
No, let's not do that. Ever. :)
Phobos is just an example. People will want to use "package.d" files
for their own libraries too, and will complain if it doesn't work.
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
