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

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Ellery
Newcomer<ellery-newcomer at utulsa.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, you've just sapped my resolve to continue. You wouldn't happen to
> have a list of these things somewhere, would you?

What I've listed in my post is most of it.  :)

> 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.

That sounds like a bug to me.  The compiler really should disallow
redefining built-in properties, and it does for some (try defining a
'sizeof' member), but not others.  (Of course I find the whole
property syntax used for type introspection a bit silly, a
half-thought-out feature that's hard to parse, not easily extensible,
and which doesn't fit syntactically with the rest of the
metaprogramming facilities.)