Using DMD 0.128, Windows 98SE.

The compiler passes this without error:

----------
void main() {
    int x;
    int[] y;

    5;
    10 - 7;
    x;
    x + x;
    x * 5;
    y.length;
    y[1];
    y.sizeof / x;
    "Hello, world!";
}
----------

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#expression

"Expressions that have no effect, like (x + x), are illegal in expression statements."

Therefore, apart from the declarations at the top, there is not a single legal statement above.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K- w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon schrieb:
> Using DMD 0.128, Windows 98SE.
> 
> The compiler passes this without error:
> 
> ----------
> void main() {
>     int x;
>     int[] y;
> 
>     5;
>     10 - 7;
>     x;
>     x + x;
>     x * 5;
>     y.length;
>     y[1];
>     y.sizeof / x;
>     "Hello, world!";
> }
> ----------
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#expression
> 
> "Expressions that have no effect, like (x + x), are illegal in
> expression statements."
> 
> Therefore, apart from the declarations at the top, there is not a single legal statement above.

Added to DStress as http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_03_A.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_03_B.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_03_C.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_04_A.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_04_B.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_04_C.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_05.d

Thomas

Q: Which of these testcases is the odd one out?  (Scroll down to find out)

In article <des1kj$b7a$1@digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thomas_K=FChne?= says...
>http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_03_A.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_03_B.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_03_C.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_04_A.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_04_B.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_04_C.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_05.d








A: http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_03_B.d

Because it doesn't test the same issue as the rest.  Rather, it parses as a
declaration (declare x to be a
pointer to an x).

Stewart.

Stewart Gordon schrieb:

> Q: Which of these testcases is the odd one out?  (Scroll down to find out)
> 
> In article <des1kj$b7a$1@digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thomas_K=FChne?= says...
> 
>>http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_03_A.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_03_B.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_03_C.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_04_A.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_04_B.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_04_C.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_05.d
> 
[snip]
> 
> A: http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/e/ExpressionStatement_03_B.d
> 
> Because it doesn't test the same issue as the rest.  Rather, it parses as a
> declaration (declare x to be a
> pointer to an x).

A:
| void main(){
|	int x;
|	x;
| }

B:
| void main(){
|	int x;
|	x * x;
| }

C:
| void main(){
|	int x;
|	x * 5;
| }

I don't see any pointers.

Thomas

In article <deu8ef$238k$1@digitaldaemon.com>,
=?UTF-8?B?VGhvbWFzIEvDvGhuZQ==?= says...
<snip>
>> Because it doesn't test the same issue as the rest.  Rather, it parses as a declaration (declare x to be a pointer to an x).
<snip>
> B:
>> void main(){
>>     int x;
>>     x * x;
>> }
<snip>
> I don't see any pointers.

Welcome to D.  The type "pointer to x" is written as "x*".  And the simplest declaration has the form

Type Identifier;

so of course that's a declaration of a pointer.  And Walter told us once upon a time that if a Statement can parse as either DeclarationStatement or ExpressionStatement then it is treated as a DeclarationStatement.

What did you think "declare x to be a pointer to an x" looked like?

Stewart.

Stewart Gordon schrieb:
> In article <deu8ef$238k$1@digitaldaemon.com>,
> =?UTF-8?B?VGhvbWFzIEvDvGhuZQ==?= says...
> <snip>
> 
>>>Because it doesn't test the same issue as the rest.  Rather, it parses as a declaration (declare x to be a pointer to an x).
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>B:
>>
>>>void main(){
>>>    int x;
>>>    x * x;
>>>}
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>I don't see any pointers.
> 
> 
> Welcome to D.  The type "pointer to x" is written as "x*".  And the simplest declaration has the form
> 
> Type Identifier;
> 
> so of course that's a declaration of a pointer.  And Walter told us once upon a time that if a Statement can parse as either DeclarationStatement or ExpressionStatement then it is treated as a DeclarationStatement.
> 
> What did you think "declare x to be a pointer to an x" looked like?

If the above is interpreted as an DeclarationStatement the following code should compile, shouldn't it?

void main(){
	int x;
	x * y; // line 3
}

a.d(3): x is used as a type

Thomas

Thomas Kühne schrieb:
> Stewart Gordon schrieb:
> 
>>In article <deu8ef$238k$1@digitaldaemon.com>,
>>=?UTF-8?B?VGhvbWFzIEvDvGhuZQ==?= says...
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Because it doesn't test the same issue as the rest.  Rather, it parses as a declaration (declare x to be a pointer to an x).
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>B:
>>>
>>>
>>>>void main(){
>>>>   int x;
>>>>   x * x;
>>>>}
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I don't see any pointers.
>>
>>
>>Welcome to D.  The type "pointer to x" is written as "x*".  And the simplest declaration has the form
>>
>>Type Identifier;
>>
>>so of course that's a declaration of a pointer.  And Walter told us once upon a time that if a Statement can parse as either DeclarationStatement or ExpressionStatement then it is treated as a DeclarationStatement.
>>
>>What did you think "declare x to be a pointer to an x" looked like?
> 
> 
> If the above is interpreted as an DeclarationStatement the following code should compile, shouldn't it?
> 
> void main(){
> 	int x;
> 	x * y; // line 3
> }
> 
> a.d(3): x is used as a type

Oh I see, my modified frontend is behaving differently than the offical one.

Thomas

In article <df0qa7$1602$1@digitaldaemon.com>, =?UTF-8?B?VGhvbWFzIEvDvGhuZQ==?=
says...
<snip>
>If the above is interpreted as an DeclarationStatement the following code should compile, shouldn't it?

It doesn't, because x isn't a type.

OTOH this will compile:

void main() {
alias int x;
x * y;
}

or

class x {
int z;
}

void main() {
x * y;
}

Stewart.