• Eric (10/10) Jan 11 2014 Apparently the line,
• Adam D. Ruppe (3/4) Jan 11 2014 It is just that repeated storage classes aren't always caught as
• Maxim Fomin (12/22) Jan 11 2014 It is a particular example of current nonsense in attribution
• bearophile (5/8) Jan 13 2014 See also:

"Eric" <eric makechip.com> writes:

Apparently the line,

static shared static int x;

will compile just fine.  Is this sort of a bug,
or does it mean something different from just

static shared int x;

?

Also, the line,

static static static int x;

will also compile.  Does this mean x is extra static?

-Eric

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 17:50:01 UTC, Eric wrote:
 Does this mean x is extra static?

It is just that repeated storage classes aren't always caught as 
an error (though they sometimes are!)

"Maxim Fomin" <maxim maxim-fomin.ru> writes:

On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 17:50:01 UTC, Eric wrote:
 Apparently the line,

 static shared static int x;

 will compile just fine.  Is this sort of a bug,
 or does it mean something different from just

 static shared int x;

 ?

 Also, the line,

 static static static int x;

 will also compile.  Does this mean x is extra static?

 -Eric

It is a particular example of current nonsense in attribution 
parsing. This compiles:

void main()
{
	pure int i;
	 disable int di;
	nothrow int ni;
}

as well as more sophisticated nonsense. Issue is filed is 
bugzilla, so it will be fixed sooner or latter, current policy is 
to ignore it.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Maxim Fomin:

 as well as more sophisticated nonsense. Issue is filed is 
 bugzilla, so it will be fixed sooner or latter, current policy 
 is to ignore it.

See also:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3934

Bye,
bearophile