What's keeping us from having such a tool? It seems that after one has a decent parser (that also keeps tracks of the source ranges of AST nodes), it's easy to write code that does syntactic modifications and then rewrites the source code. And there's several D parsers out there already - so it should be too much effort to get there. Even I am working on a tool that can be easily retrofitted for this purpose.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding the amount of semantic analysis that would typically be required? Can someone give some examples of modifications that would be useful for such a dfix tool? (I haven't yet had the time to watch the full panel video, if that's relevant)

Well, my recent efforts lead my to belief that I am in over my head with this. But ... many sufficiently simple transformations can be done with a complex regex and for me that is faster, given the trouble I have with writing ASTMatchers for Dscanner. BTW. Does anyone know a good approch to a DSL describeing AST-transformation patterns ? What I currently have is SQL-like Syntax and I feel it won't scale to complex selction and/or transformation patterns.
Input is welcome.

Reply via email to