Re: since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-10 Thread Timon Gehr
On 09/10/2012 07:07 AM, Ellery Newcomer wrote: On 09/08/2012 09:01 AM, Timon Gehr wrote: On 09/08/2012 04:11 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote: alias enum int e; It is valid according to the grammar I don't believe you. Show me the derivation. The grammar as shown on dlang.org indeed seems not

Re: since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-09 Thread Ellery Newcomer
On 09/08/2012 09:01 AM, Timon Gehr wrote: On 09/08/2012 04:11 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote: alias enum int e; It is valid according to the grammar I don't believe you. Show me the derivation.

since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-08 Thread Ellery Newcomer
alias enum int e;

Re: since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-08 Thread Timon Gehr
On 09/08/2012 04:11 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote: alias enum int e; It is valid according to the grammar and DMD ignores meaningless attributes. scope shared @disable @trusted package final override deprecated extern __gshared synchronized pure nothrow ref static abstract immutable alias auto

Re: since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-08 Thread bearophile
Timon Gehr: It is valid according to the grammar and DMD ignores meaningless attributes. Do you know why? Is it just a unfinished part of dmd, or Walter believes this is an acceptable design for a compiler? In years I have never heard a comment from him on this bad situation. Bye,

Re: since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-08 Thread Chris Cain
On Saturday, 8 September 2012 at 16:00:44 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: scope shared @disable @trusted package final override deprecated extern __gshared synchronized pure nothrow ref static abstract immutable alias auto final override deprecated extern __gshared synchronized enum pure nothrow ref

Re: since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-08 Thread Timon Gehr
On 09/08/2012 06:44 PM, bearophile wrote: Timon Gehr: It is valid according to the grammar and DMD ignores meaningless attributes. Do you know why? No reason. Is it just a unfinished part of dmd, or Walter believes this is an acceptable design for a compiler? Jonathan would say he has

Re: since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-08 Thread Maxim Fomin
On Saturday, 8 September 2012 at 16:00:44 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: On 09/08/2012 04:11 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote: alias enum int e; It is valid according to the grammar and DMD ignores meaningless attributes. scope shared @disable @trusted package final override deprecated extern __gshared

Re: since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-08 Thread Timon Gehr
On 09/08/2012 09:25 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote: On Saturday, 8 September 2012 at 16:00:44 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: On 09/08/2012 04:11 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote: alias enum int e; It is valid according to the grammar and DMD ignores meaningless attributes. scope shared @disable @trusted package

Re: since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-08 Thread Jonathan M Davis
On Saturday, September 08, 2012 20:25:38 Timon Gehr wrote: Jonathan would say he has more important things to do. If someone else did it and had good enough arguments why the change should be made, then it might make it in, but on top of Walter's time issues, this strikes me as the sort of

Re: since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-08 Thread Era Scarecrow
On Saturday, 8 September 2012 at 18:16:33 UTC, Chris Cain wrote: Time to hold an obfuscated D contest! Hmmm... A little more difficult compared to C, since you don't have the pre-processor. I recall TCC (Tiny C Compiler) was originally done in a obfuscation contest where he got the main

Re: since when was this valid syntax?

2012-09-08 Thread Maxim Fomin
2012/9/8 Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch: On 09/08/2012 09:25 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote: On Saturday, 8 September 2012 at 16:00:44 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: On 09/08/2012 04:11 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote: alias enum int e; It is valid according to the grammar and DMD ignores meaningless