[~OT] Finally, a clear, concise D spec!

[Ellery Newcomer]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Ellery
> Newcomer<ellery-newcomer at utulsa.edu> wrote:
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Daniel
>>> Keep<daniel.keep.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, but you can't seriously claim D is still easy to implement whilst
>>>> .stringof still exists in its current form.  :P
>>> Oh, .stringof is nothing compared to the complexity added by string mixins ;)
>>>
>>> Or some of the scarier parsing issues.  (Type).Identifier and the (int
>>> x) { return x + 5; } delegates are two things that come to mind..
>> What's up with the last two? I haven't quite gotten to them in semantic
>> yet, but I didn't notice any problems in parsing them
> 
> (Type).Ident is one case of many in the D grammar 

Well, you've just sapped my resolve to continue. You wouldn't happen to
have a list of these things somewhere, would you?

Come to think of it, am I missing anything about stringof? It looks to
me like contradictory requirements; on one hand spec mandates no
semantic analysis, on the other you need to determine if stringof is a
field reachable by dot. And the compiler goes with the latter.