Identifier resolution, the great implementation defined mess.

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 18 September 2014 at 21:31:26 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 September 2014 at 22:42:27 UTC, deadalnix 
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 September 2014 at 16:25:57 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> I had impression that general rule is "most inner scope takes 
>>> priority" (with base classes being one "imaginary" scope 
>>> above the current one). Are there any actual inconsistencies 
>>> you have noticed or it just a matter of lacking matching spec 
>>> entry?
>>
>> There is no inconsistencies because there is no spec.
>
> Maybe in this case it is best to just look at what dmd does and 
> add that to the spec (assuming what dmd does is sound, and 
> makes sense).

Yeah this is exactly what I was asking about. I assumed that
deadlnix has done some research about it and found some specific
inconsistencies / issues - after all, it is not the only
implementation-defined feature he must have encountered :)