On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 00:03:52 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
I take it you also don't care if your IDE lags for 5 seconds every time you type a character?
Actually, modern parsers can parse ambiguous grammars in O(N) using memoing.
Just because you are reluctant to implement a modern parser does not mean that it cannot be done and wrapped up as a library.
I'm a tool writer. If I have enough problems, I don't build the tool. The problem is now your problem.
D does not even have a published grammar that rejects programs that are not well formed.
The problem is not that having a programmer friendly will cause tool writer problems. The problem is in D specification and semantics which are C++ish.
What people have requested is not C++ish it is well within a CFG.
You know what else is easy for humans? Image and audio processing and knowing how to walk. Things that are easy for machines are hard for humans. Things that are easy for humans are hard for machines.
What is easy for a standards committee is to check that their data structure definitions are implementable in C, C++, Java, C# and SQL. Not being able to repesent those in D will make D less attractive. Besides there is no ambiguity in allowing arbitrary field names since they are preceded by a ".".
(nobody cares about local variables)
