On 2013-11-20 23:25, luka8088 wrote:
If I understood you correctly, the issue with current way DSLs are implemented is that code needs to be parsed two times. First time DSL author parses it and creates D code from it, and second time D compiler parses that D code and compiles it. What I would suggest in this case is that instead of intercepting the compiler and "fixing" the semantics before it is verified we allow the user to build D Ast and give it to the compiler. That is why I used the mixin in my example.Ast dCodeAst = dslToD!(q{ if true do() else dont() dont2() whatever() }); // manipulate dCodeAst mixin(dCodeAst); The point of this example is that mixin() accepts Ast instead of string. That way, we parse our DSL to D Ast and give it straight to the compiler and everything is done only once!
So how is this different except for my proposal, except the use of q{} and "mixin"?
-- /Jacob Carlborg
