since when was this valid syntax?

[Timon Gehr]

On 09/08/2012 06:44 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Timon Gehr:
>
>> It is valid according to the grammar and DMD ignores meaningless
>> attributes.
>
> Do you know why?

No reason.

> Is it just a unfinished part of dmd, or Walter believes
> this is an acceptable design for a compiler?

Jonathan would say he has more important things to do.

> In years I have never heard a comment from him on this bad situation.
>

I'd design it differently as well. But this is the kind of thing that
can be ignored indefinitely without hurting the programmer more than
once. A similar issue is that the compiler actually won't detect
clashing function overloads, leaving the error report up to the linker.