Replace GRAMMAR_INFORMATIVE by INFORMATIVE_GRAMMAR

[Bolpat]

Because GRAMMAR_INFORMATIVE starts with GRAMMAR, there are stray ones included in the grammar spec.

[dlang-bot]

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @Bolpat! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

• My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
• My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
• I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
• New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

---

If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Your PR doesn't reference any Bugzilla issue.

If your PR contains non-trivial changes, please reference a Bugzilla issue or create a manual changelog.

[Bolpat]

I just checked the prospect Grammar page and it looks good.

[Bolpat]

@ntrel or @thewilsonator, one of you might take a quick look at this. Thanks in advance 😄

[thewilsonator]

Why is this necessary or desired?

[dkorpel]

Why is this necessary or desired?

To remove blocks like this from the main D grammar:

[Bolpat]

@thewilsonator, there is a little D program that collects all blocks starting with $(GRAMMAR and adds them to the D Grammar page. The issue is that $(GRAMMAR_INFORMATIVE starts with $(GRAMMAR and is collected as well. I thought about changing the script to do a lookahead and make sure GRAMMAR isn’t followed by another word character, but honestly, I didn’t understand the code, and IMO, it would have required some non-trivial change, as the find operation is in a UFCS chain. So I changed the name of the DDoc macro instead.

---

Before, the GRAMMAR_INFORMATIVE made D Grammar have stray explanation grammar blocks:

With this change, using INFORMATIVE_GRAMMAR, those aren’t included anymore:

The second block of old is from here, where it is part of an explanation that only makes sense in context:

[thewilsonator]

Surely you can do

-            enum grammarKey = "$(GRAMMAR";
+            enum grammarKey = "$(GRAMMAR";

then. Or is that intended to pick up "$(GRAMMAR_SUMMARY" too?

[Bolpat]

Surely you can do

-            enum grammarKey = "$(GRAMMAR";
+            enum grammarKey = "$(GRAMMAR";

then.

Is this a joke that I don’t get? Those two lines are exactly the same.

Or is that intended to pick up "$(GRAMMAR_SUMMARY" too?

GRAMMAR_SUMMARY is only used in one place. It’s likely that it’s being picked up, but doesn’t actually do anything when it’s picked up.

[thewilsonator]

Is this a joke that I don’t get?

Nope, that was supposed to be

-            enum grammarKey = "$(GRAMMAR";
+            enum grammarKey = "$(GRAMMAR ";

my bad.

[Bolpat]

Is this a joke that I don’t get?

Nope, that was supposed to be

-            enum grammarKey = "$(GRAMMAR";
+            enum grammarKey = "$(GRAMMAR ";

my bad.

Most definitely, a space or newline could follow. Possibly also something else. I’ll keep it as-is for now. The Right Thing would be to check for the word ending, but that’s non-trivial.

[Bolpat]

@ntrel or @thewilsonator, merge?

[Bolpat]

@thewilsonator, merge?