On 1/12/2012 1:55 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
It's the "Language Reference" section on dlang.org.
Yes, but there's differences between the language reference and what DMD
implements. Sometimes the language reference is right, sometimes DMD is right.
The point is, there's no way for us to know. Only you can decide what is right.
For each difference, somebody has to make a decision which is right. That
doesn't mean the Language Reference is not the D specification. It can have
errors in it like anything else.
The idea is to identify those discrepancies and get them fixed.
One example off the top of my head (there are many more):
From the Lexical page on dlang.org
q{ @ } // error, @ is not a valid D token
But DMD accepts this.
Yes, and now your pull request on that has been pulled. Thanks! That issue is
now resolved. On to the next one.
You've said to post bugs, but these don't receive any attention. For example,
here's two bugs about the lack of documentation on .stringof, one from 2009 and
one from early 2011:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5404
Neither of which have received any comments or clarifications.
I'm sorry about that, but I'm running as fast as I can, along with the help of a
number of prolific contributors. As you can see by the changelog, there are a
zillion issues that do get resolved every month.
We need a real, up to date, and detailed language specification! Leave the
implementation to us.
The only way to do it is to identify the issues one by one. I don't know of any
other way.
(And a number of people have submitted improvements to the spec, some of them
quite extensive, like Stewart Gordon's, which have been incorporated.)
