base class access specifier[s]
BCS
ao at pathlink.com
Mon Jan 19 11:28:39 PST 2009
Reply to Ellery,
> I don't buy that. Not that I'm a C guru or anything, but it looks to
> me that Parser::BaseClasses could be easily edited to make the point
> in question go away.
>
it's not a parser thing but a grammar thing. It would be complex to define
a grammar that allows one each of the different types of prefixes that are
allowed:
int a = 5;
auto b = 5;
const c = 5;
static d = 5;
const static int e = 5;
protected const static int f = 5;
static const protected g = 5;
each of those is allow and reasonable in different contexts. To avoid redundant
grammars and inconsistencies they are generalized and also shared with classes,
structs, etc.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn
mailing list