On 2013-02-06 16:41, Robert wrote:
:-) That is pretty much what I had in mind! Awesome! I would love to
help with this. I would start with some writing down of my ideas and
concepts I have in mind, if you are interested? If you are, where should
we discuss such things? On this mailing list?
Yes, I would be interested. I don't know what would be the best
communication channel.
I will replace the Ruby code with D.
As the ultimate goal of my idea was to establish D as a compiled
language with all/most of the benefits of interpreted languages, it
would seem strange if the tool that made this possible was not written
in D. It would suggest that this was not possible in the first place. So
I think this is a good idea.
Concise definitions could be made possible, either by importing stuff in
an appropriate environment as Andrei suggested or if needed even via a
DSL, with string mixin's. So I think D already offers all we need, for
good concise configuration files?
As I said, I will replace Ruby with D, that includes the DSL. It's the
only place where Ruby is used. The rest is D.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
