Various documentation questions

[Bernard Helyer]

On 06/06/10 03:26, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> On 06/05/2010 08:22 AM, Bernard Helyer wrote:
>> I may be trying to write a D2 compiler in D2 (you can't prove
>> anything!),
>
> ditto, except mine is in java

Awesome! :)


>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/module.html#ImportDeclaration
>>
>> "static import ImportList ;"
>>
>> is listed specifically, but static can be found under
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/attribute.html#AttributeSpecifier
>>
>> which can have a DeclarationBlock afterward, which would include a
>> single import statement, so surely the former is tautological?
>>
>
> from my reading, I don't think this is the case in dmd. It does
> literally parse 'static import'. same with static if, static assert, and
> maybe some others. I don't know, but I suspect that stuff like
>
> static public import blah;
>
> wouldn't give you a static import. I also don't know whether it would be
> reasonable to make it work like that. The trouble is static means
> something else for other declarations.
>
> Something like
>
> static:
> ...
> import blah;
>
> In the parser that I currently have, it would be rather obnoxious to
> tell the difference between that and 'static import blah;'. Well, maybe
> not.

Okay, I see.


>
>> ---
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html#keyword
>>
>> where do the @keywords fall?
>>
>
> '@' is a token which should be followed by an identifier
>

I did not know that. Thanks!


>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/expression.html#PostfixExpression
>>
>> "PostfixExpression . NewExpression"
>>
>> Where is that valid?
>>
>
> I remember thinking the same thing.
>
> class A{
> class B{
> string s;
> }
> int i;
> }
>
> void main(){
> //A.B b = new A.B; //Error: outer class A 'this' needed to 'new' nested
> class B
> A a = new A;
> A.B b = a.new B;
> }

Funky. Thank you for the example.

>
>> ---
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/expression.html#UnaryExpression
>>
>> "( Type ) . Identifier"
>>
>> why is that significant?
>>
>> ---
>
> I suppose it's a bid to reduce the amount of incorrect parsing that
> would result from
>
> Type . Identifier
>
> And to its credit, I don't think I have come across any trouble with it.

Maybe I'm having a slow morning, but I can't really grok that. Could you 
elaborate? Speak slowly. :)