[dmd-internals] Fixing forward ref bugs for good

[Rainer Schuetze]

On 15.09.2011 09:00, Don Clugston wrote:
> On 15 September 2011 08:29, Rainer Schuetze<r.sagitario at gmx.de>  wrote:
>> What happens, if the evaluation of "static if" turns out to require symbols
>> from the same scope? (Something I did not mention above: unconditionally
>> existing or expanded members of a scope should be added to the symbol lookup
>> as soon as possible.) My current suggestion is: do not recurse into the
>> expansion of "complex" members, just use the currently available symbols.
> What do you mean by "complex" members?

"complex" in the sense of my (no longer quoted) initial mail: the 
members that have to be expanded before searching the scope is normally 
possible, i.e. static-if and mixins. They need semantic analysis before 
they might expand to new members that add more symbols to the scope.