Various documentation questions

[Ellery Newcomer]

On 06/05/2010 08:22 AM, Bernard Helyer wrote:
> I may be trying to write a D2 compiler in D2 (you can't prove
> anything!),

ditto, except mine is in java

it's early days, but I've run into a few things I'd like
> clarification on. This won't be the last of these posts, I'm sure of it!
> *g*
>
> I'm not sure what are bugs, in documentation, in DMD, and in my
> understanding.
>
>
> ---
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/module.html#ModuleDeclaration
>
> "module (system) ModuleFullyQualifiedName ;"
>
> This syntax is not accepted by DMD.
>
> ---
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/module.html#ImportDeclaration
>
> "static import ImportList ;"
>
> is listed specifically, but static can be found under
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/attribute.html#AttributeSpecifier
>
> which can have a DeclarationBlock afterward, which would include a
> single import statement, so surely the former is tautological?
>

from my reading, I don't think this is the case in dmd. It does 
literally parse 'static import'. same with static if, static assert, and 
maybe some others. I don't know, but I suspect that stuff like

static public import blah;

wouldn't give you a static import. I also don't know whether it would be 
reasonable to make it work like that. The trouble is static means 
something else for other declarations.

Something like

static:
...
import blah;

In the parser that I currently have, it would be rather obnoxious to 
tell the difference between that and 'static import blah;'. Well, maybe not.

> ---
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html#keyword
>
> where do the @keywords fall?
>

'@' is a token which should be followed by an identifier

> ---
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html#tokens
>
> There is no '**' token listed. I assume this is an omission (and lex it
> as a separate token in SDC, and not two '*'s).
>
> ---
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/expression.html#PostfixExpression
>
> "PostfixExpression . NewExpression"
>
> Where is that valid?
>

I remember thinking the same thing.

class A{
     class B{
         string s;
     }
     int i;
}

void main(){
     //A.B b = new A.B; //Error: outer class A 'this' needed to 'new' 
nested class B
     A a = new A;
     A.B b = a.new B;
}

> ---
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/expression.html#UnaryExpression
>
> "( Type ) . Identifier"
>
> why is that significant?
>
> ---

I suppose it's a bid to reduce the amount of incorrect parsing that 
would result from

Type . Identifier

And to its credit, I don't think I have come across any trouble with it.