Interested in D, spec confuses me.

[Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 at 16:41:54 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> Sure, but - as this post illustrates - there are clearly 
> sections of the spec that could have their explanations 
> improved.

  It's sorta why i don't refer to the spec to see how the language 
currently works, and instead refer to the D book that's the 
baseline for the D2 standard; even if it's incredibly out of 
date. Too much of the spec from when i glanced at it felt like i 
was reading a lexx/yacc definition, which is a total turn-off.