Casper Ellingsen wrote:
> There's two conflicting definitions of postfix expressions in  http://www.digitalmars.com/d/expression.html. In the BNF at the top a  postfix expression is defined as
> 
>     PostfixExpression:
>         PrimaryExpression
>         PostfixExpression . Identifier
>         PostfixExpression ++
>         PostfixExpression --
>         PostfixExpression ( )
>         PostfixExpression ( ArgumentList )
>         IndexExpression
>         SliceExpression
> 
>     IndexExpression:
>         PostfixExpression [ ArgumentList ]
> 
>     SliceExpression:
>         PostfixExpression [ ]
>         PostfixExpression [ AssignExpression .. AssignExpression ]
> 
> On the other hand, in the textual description further down, a postfix  expression is defined as
> 
>     PostfixExpression:
>         PostfixExpression . Identifier
>         PostfixExpression -> Identifier
>         PostfixExpression ++
>         PostfixExpression --
>         PostfixExpression ( ArgumentList )
>         PostfixExpression [ ArgumentList ]
>         PostfixExpression [ AssignExpression .. AssignExpression ]
> 
> The first one has
> 
>         PostfixExpression ( )
>         PostfixExpression [ ]
> 
> which the second one doesn't have, whereas the second one has
> 
>         PostfixExpression -> Identifier
> 
> which the first one doesn't have. What's the correct definition? Oh, if  only the BNF grammar was correct. :/

Obviously the second one is obselete.
D doesn't have the -> operator, it seems like it had it in the past though.
Also, the [] on expressions is a ``slice`` operator, which goes (I think) like [0..$]

Don Clugston wrote:
> Casper Ellingsen wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:38:18 +0100, Casper Ellingsen <no@reply.com> wrote:
>>
>> A version condition is defined in  http://www.digitalmars.com/d/version.html as
>>
>>     VersionCondition:
>>         version () Integer
>>         version () Identifier
>>
>> One valid version condition is
>>
>>     version(X86)
>>
>> so why isn't the BNF rules defined as
>>
>>     VersionCondition:
>>         version ( Integer )
>>         version ( Identifier )
>>
>> instead? It just seems odd to me, and really confused me for a while.
> 
> 
> The parentheses are in the wrong place all through the docs. 
Indeed. I've wondered if that was wrong, or if it was just a different kind of notation for the grammar, that I was unfamiliar with, since I'm no expert in this subject.

> I think it's a ddoc problem (the docs weren't updated properly when they were converted to Ddoc).

Hum...
What does the grammar doc have anything to do with ddoc ?


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
"Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
> 
>> Casper Ellingsen wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:38:18 +0100, Casper Ellingsen <no@reply.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> A version condition is defined in  http://www.digitalmars.com/d/version.html as
>>>
>>>     VersionCondition:
>>>         version () Integer
>>>         version () Identifier
>>>
>>> One valid version condition is
>>>
>>>     version(X86)
>>>
>>> so why isn't the BNF rules defined as
>>>
>>>     VersionCondition:
>>>         version ( Integer )
>>>         version ( Identifier )
>>>
>>> instead? It just seems odd to me, and really confused me for a while.
>>
>>
>>
>> The parentheses are in the wrong place all through the docs. 
> 
> Indeed. I've wondered if that was wrong, or if it was just a different kind of notation for the grammar, that I was unfamiliar with, since I'm no expert in this subject.
> 
>> I think it's a ddoc problem (the docs weren't updated properly when they were converted to Ddoc).
> 
> 
> Hum...
> What does the grammar doc have anything to do with ddoc ?

Nothing, except that they are no longer written in HTML, they're .ddoc files which are converted into HTML (so that they get proper D code colouring, etc). Funny things happened to the ampersands (in ddoc you can write &, in HTML it must be &amp;), and apparently the parentheses, too.