Code behaves incorrectly if it is compiled in std.functional

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 05:02:47 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:49:00 +0000, Marc Schütz wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 6 June 2015 at 15:12:38 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>> what should i check to see what is *really* allowed, why two 
>>> storage
>>> classes allowed with one combination and not allowed with 
>>> another?
>> 
>> Well, you can look at the compiler's source...
>> 
>> But I'm sure this is not the answer you wanted ;-)
>
> sure. now i'm completely lost. i shouldn't use DMD to find out 
> things,
> yet i have to use DMD to find out things.

Im my defense, you asked what _is_ really allowed, not what 
_should_ be allowed...

>
> ok, let's be serious. what i'm trying to say is that there 
> should be not
> only grammar with comments inside it here and there, but the 
> document
> that explains "what is what", what's compatible with what and 
> so on. the
> "specs" in the meaning that one can point to it and say: "this 
> is how it
> is supposed to be. now fix your code". or "now let's fix the 
> compiler."
>
> the specs where no "undefined behavior" words are used, and no 
> "it's left
> to compiler implementer to decide". (but "look at DMDFE source" 
> is
> allowed ;-).

Brian Schott did a lot of work finding inconsistencies and 
ambiguities in the grammar, and I believe his DConf talk was 
partially about it.