On 11/2/20 9:30 PM, Manu wrote:
> It's very hard to express a grammar change in a DIP like this, since D
> doesn't have a grammar as such; it's just an implementation, and
> reverse-engineering a grammar from the implementation is imprecise.
> Perhaps my implementation implies additional grammar changes that I
> didn't notice.
I thought the grammar is fairly complete, no? It's the semantics that's
poorly defined.
It may be complete, but it's difficult to relate to the code, and when making changes to DMD, it's easy to make changes and not clearly see how it might have affected the grammar shown in the spec.
It's just that someone reverse-engineered an approx grammar from the implementation. DMD doesn't have a formal grammar; it's implementation defined.