3 ms·
I mean if you take the grammar to be part of the official language specification and you believe it prohibits recursive typedefs then isn't that sufficient? It
by mehrdadn 8y ago
I mean if you take the grammar to be part of the official language specification and you believe it prohibits recursive typedefs then isn't that sufficient? It seems a bit like saying it causes you trouble on occasion that they never explicitly spelled out that 'deftype' isn't a synonym for 'typedef'? I would've assumed that if something is not valid in the grammar then it's not valid in the language described by it.
- burfog 8y agoWell the hope is that somehow I'm misunderstanding the grammar... because there simply must be a way to do this. How can the language committee leave this flaw unfixed?
- mehrdadn 8y ago> there simply must be a way to do this. Why? This seems completely baseless. > How can the language committee leave this flaw unfixed? Same way many languages like C++, C#, Java, VB etc. left this "flaw" unfixed.