Multiple attribute specifiers

[Stewart Gordon]

Ary Manzana wrote:
> If I write this inside a module:
> 
> --------------------------------------
> public private int x;
> --------------------------------------
> 
> it compiles perfectly.
> 
> What is the protection level of x? public or private? Well, you can try 
> compiling it and using it to find out, but I think the compiler should 
> issue a warning or, much better, an error.

It should _definitely_ issue an error.  I call this a bug indeed.

> This confusion also appears if I write
> 
> --------------------------------------
> public {
> 
>     private {
> 
>         int x;
> 
>     }
> 
> }
> --------------------------------------
> 
> Again, the same question. Is x public or private?

When one protection attribute appears within an attribute block that 
specifies another, the inner one overrides.

> I was going to post this to the digitalmars.D.bugs list, but I want some 
> comments on this before proceeding.

The .bugs 'group contains a lot more than issues that people are 
_certain_ are bugs.  Indeed, it's quite a good place to discuss 
behaviour that looks like a bug.

> I know no one would want to write such a thing, but on the compiler side 
> (or other tools) it is crucial to know what should be the semantic 
> (because currently it's legal).

By "legal", I take it you mean the compiler accepts it.  By "the 
semantic", do you mean what the compiler does with it?

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ 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.