Trass3r wrote:
> Am 02.04.2011, 10:11 Uhr, schrieb Rainer Schuetze <r.sagitario@gmx.de>:
>> Do we want to allow spaces and comments between these tokens?
>> - extern ( C ++ )
> Well we would have to introduce C++ as a keyword just for that purpose.
> Not worth it.

It does not have to be a keyword, but the parser can just verify there are no spaces, if a lexer token keeps that information. But I agree, not worth changing anything.

> 
>> - @ Property (safe, trusted, disable, etc)
> safe, trusted etc. aren't keywords.
> dmd handles it as ('@' identifier) and that's exactly what the grammar should be to support user-defined attributes in the future.
> 

Although it is not the current behaviour, I think it would be cleaner if the lexer would generate a token "Property" that always starts with '@' and continues as an identifer. This would replace the current token "@", simply moving the rule "Property: '@' Identifier" from the parser into the lexer.

This still includes any user-defined attributes for future extensions.

I hope, we agree on !in and !is, as the current lexing introduces the shown parsing problems. But !is needs to be added to the IsExpression rules then.

> I hope, we agree on !in and !is, as the current lexing introduces the shown parsing problems. But !is needs to be added to the IsExpression rules then.

Hmm what if you have something like Templ!is(T:int)

Is http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5785 fixable with grammar changes other that !is being one token?
I haven't had a look yet how UFCS is expressed and how it could affect this.

Trass3r wrote:
>> I hope, we agree on !in and !is, as the current lexing introduces the shown parsing problems. But !is needs to be added to the IsExpression rules then.
> 
> Hmm what if you have something like Templ!is(T:int)

This is not allowed, template arguments without parenthesis are limited to a specific list of single tokens.

> 
> Is http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5785 fixable with grammar changes other that !is being one token?

>>    if (s.x !in a) {}
>>    if (b !in a) {} // but this compiles!?

The second line works because it is special cased for PrimaryExpression in the dmd parser by checking whether '!' is followed by 'in' or 'is', while PostfixExpression only checks 'is'. I've added a patch to the bugreport.

> I haven't had a look yet how UFCS is expressed and how it could affect this.