Correct rule for unqualified function invocations.

Correct rule for unqualified function invocations.

R=hausner@google.com

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=28954

[hausner, 2013-10-21 20:02:50]

LGTM with comment.

https://codereview.chromium.org/33383002/diff/1/docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex
File docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/33383002/diff/1/docs/language/dartLangSpec.te...
docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex:3527: %Otherwise, if there is an accessible
(\ref{privacy}) static method named $id$ declared in a superclass $S$ of the
immediately enclosing class $C$ then i is equivalent to the static method
invocation $S.id(a_1, \ldots, a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots, x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$.
The above paragraph and the rationale is not present in the Docs version of the
spec.

[gbracha, 2013-10-21 21:29:36]

Committed patchset #1 manually as r28954 (presubmit successful).

[gbracha, 2013-10-21 21:29:51]

https://codereview.chromium.org/33383002/diff/1/docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex
File docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/33383002/diff/1/docs/language/dartLangSpec.te...
docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex:3527: %Otherwise, if there is an accessible
(\ref{privacy}) static method named $id$ declared in a superclass $S$ of the
immediately enclosing class $C$ then i is equivalent to the static method
invocation $S.id(a_1, \ldots, a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots, x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$.
On 2013/10/21 20:02:50, hausner wrote:
> The above paragraph and the rationale is not present in the Docs version of
the
> spec.


It's commented out - in latex, the % sign begins a comment.