On Wednesday, 1 May 2013 at 06:12:54 UTC, Jay Norwood wrote:
On Saturday, 6 April 2013 at 14:50:50 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
Interesting thread. I've been working on a hand-written D
parser (in Java, for the DDT IDE) and I too have found a slew
of grammar spec issues. Some of them more serious than the
ones you mentioned above. In same cases it's actually not
clear, or downright wrong what the grammar spec says. For
example, here's one off of my notes:
void func(int foo() { } );
The spec says that is parsable (basically a function
declaration in the parameter list), which makes no sense, and
DMD doesn't accept.
I'm wondering about the statement above, over in digitalmars.D
thread, that the declaration makes no sense.
http://dlang.org/expression.html#FunctionLiteral has
void foo(int function(int) fp);
Is/was void foo(int fp(int){}); intended to be accepted as an
alternate form of that declaration?
look at signature
void foo(int function(int) fp);
it means "function foo which accepts another function which takes
one int argument and return int value", and it perfectly fine.
but this(void foo(int fp(int){});) is indeed doesn't work with
DMD, so it may be just outdated stuff from D1, or someone's
strange idea(may be inspired by something from java?) or anything
like that.
