On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 00:14:51 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:03:51 +0000, Brian Schott wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 23:22:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:54:27 +0000, Zach the Mystic wrote:
I think a keyword is a keyword is a keyword. If it's a
keyword to the
right it should be one everywhere. How is somethign that's a
built-in
attribute one place and an identifier in another not context
sensitive.
yep. that is "slave to the machine" approach. i don't really
care how
hard machine should work to understand what i want. ;-)
I take it you also don't care if your IDE lags for 5 seconds
every time
you type a character?
sure, i will not use such IDE, 'cause it's fubared. yet it has
nothing
with "great grammars": it's fubared 'cause the authors were
thinking
about "how we can write that cool IDE so everybody will prise
us" instead
of "how we can write our IDE that it will be fast and easy".
why bother when vim exists : )
i.e. i can't see why i have to deal with problems of
compiler/tool/editor author. it's easy -- at least in this
case -- for
human to see where keywords are keywords. machine can see
that too with
some analysis.
I'm a tool writer. If I have enough problems, I don't build
the tool.
The problem is now your problem.
that's good. as we already have at least 4 codebases to build
tools upon,
and you gave up using that and insisting on writing another
one, and
failed... i doubt that your tool was really important or even
usable. so
now i don't have to try another tool just to throw it away.
Uncalled for IMO, Schott's tools are great.
