Apparently the line,

static shared static int x;

will compile just fine.  Is this sort of a bug,
or does it mean something different from just

static shared int x;

?

Also, the line,

static static static int x;

will also compile.  Does this mean x is extra static?

-Eric

On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 17:50:01 UTC, Eric wrote:
> Does this mean x is extra static?

It is just that repeated storage classes aren't always caught as an error (though they sometimes are!)

On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 17:50:01 UTC, Eric wrote:
> Apparently the line,
>
> static shared static int x;
>
> will compile just fine.  Is this sort of a bug,
> or does it mean something different from just
>
> static shared int x;
>
> ?
>
> Also, the line,
>
> static static static int x;
>
> will also compile.  Does this mean x is extra static?
>
> -Eric

It is a particular example of current nonsense in attribution parsing. This compiles:

void main()
{
	pure int i;
	@disable int di;
	nothrow int ni;
}

as well as more sophisticated nonsense. Issue is filed is bugzilla, so it will be fixed sooner or latter, current policy is to ignore it.

Maxim Fomin:

> as well as more sophisticated nonsense. Issue is filed is bugzilla, so it will be fixed sooner or latter, current policy is to ignore it.

See also:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3934

Bye,
bearophile