Multiple attribute specifiers

[Stewart Gordon]

Ary Manzana wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> Ary Manzana wrote:
>>> If I write this inside a module:
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> public private int x;
<snip>
>> It should _definitely_ issue an error.  I call this a bug indeed.
> 
> In some post of the "learn" list someone said the last attribute should 
> be taken. I think this is ok, but it should be better to issue an error 
> (or at least a warning) because it's pretty ugly or counter-intuitive.

Can you remember anything at all about this post?  Such as who wrote it, 
or enough words from the subject line or body that there is some hope of 
finding it?

<snip>
>> By "legal", I take it you mean the compiler accepts it.  By "the 
>> semantic", do you mean what the compiler does with it?
> 
> I mean that if I want to implement a compiler, or, say, a plugin for 
> Eclipse, I need to know this things and not just make guesses or see how 
> the compiler works. At least it should be in the specifications.

Because it makes absolutely no sense, and because the spec gives no 
resolution for it, I consider this to mean that it is illegal.  On this 
basis, it's a bug that the compiler accepts it.  So the answer for what 
to do if you want to implement a compiler is: Implement one that doesn't 
have this bug!

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.