Maxim Fomin wrote:

> How this is related
I will be quiet on this, because non formal specifications tend to have ambiguities and I believe that the ambiguity I see escapes the intended scope; but I am not willing to check for this---and it is fruitless to explain such cases.

-manfred

On Sunday, 18 November 2012 at 10:19:47 UTC, Manfred Nowak wrote:
> I will be quiet on this, because non formal specifications tend
> to have ambiguities and I believe that the ambiguity I see
> escapes the intended scope; but I am not willing to check for
> this---and it is fruitless to explain such cases.

I'm pretty sure it is not related at all, you might have just been mistaking it for something else. However, if you really think it is unclear, please don't just ignore that, but submit an issue or preferably a d-p-l.org pull request so that the ambiguity will be removed.

David

On 11/18/2012 09:19 AM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 November 2012 at 23:28:21 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 11/18/2012 12:14 AM, Manfred Nowak wrote:
>>> Maxim Fomin wrote:
>>>
>>>> related to the issue?
>>>
>>> ... I can see that the definition is ambiguous. And if the coder
>>> didnt't realize the ambiguousness as you do ...
>>>
>>> -manfred
>>>
>>
>> The code given in the original post is valid D code.
>
> This is a poor argument. Validness of code is determined by the spec
> (and I have not found anything related to the issue)

TDPL is very explicit about this.

> and is supported by
> presence of alternative compilers so you can switch to another if you
> have problems with one of them.
>
> This is not the case of D. Unfortunately D spec is incomplete and does
> not give answers even for not tricky questions. Also, only few commits
> to dmd which affect language have corresponding pulls to dlang.org. And
> presence of alternative compilers does not help in majority cases
> because they share same frontend as well as bugs in it. This makes D's
> bugs to be a chief if you cannot fallback to ldc or gdc and makes
> theoretical validness of code irrelevant at practice.

It is very relevant if the goal is to improve the situation.