[Issue 13448] Class specification misses template classes in base classes list

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13448

--- Comment #3 from hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx ---
I'm not sure about basing the spec on the quirks of the current implementation.
Conceptually speaking, the base class list consists of zero or one base
classes, followed by zero or more interfaces. Just because the implementation
currently parses it as BasicType doesn't mean that that's the way the spec
should be written. What does it mean, for example, to write "class C : int,
string, float", which would be valid according to the BasicType definition?
Obviously, the *intention* is that only valid base classes / interfaces
(including any respective template instantiations) are included in the list,
even if the compiler currently implements this as a list of BasicTypes and a
post-parsing type check. I think the spec would be much clearer if written
according to intention rather than the quirks of the current implementation.

--