On 03/23/2011 05:44 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 23/03/2011 14:59, spir wrote:
On 03/23/2011 02:40 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
The first two items (LexingandParsing,
ANTLRandJavabasedDparserforIDEusage) are fairly concrete ideas.
The last one, D Tools in D is far more general, and can involve a lot of
different things
It is instead more specific: "The aim is to boost the production of
fundamental tools for analysis of D source code in D: lexical,
syntactic, at best first steps of semantic analysis; producing code
representations as D data structures."
Its usefulness /in the long term/ can be said more general in that it
would enable *further* creation of D tools in D (*), potentially useful
to all D programmers. Unlike eg a general-purpose parsing lib in D which
is specific to the parsing domain; on the other hand, a general-purpose
parsing lib does not parse only D code ;-).
(*) See (again):
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?GSOC_2011_Ideas#DtoolsinD
Denis
Yeah, I agree that D tools are (generally speaking) much more useful than a D
parsing library. But that's not the point, the point is that with the limited
manpower we have available (not just in terms of GSoC, but generally), it's
very risky and unwise to embark on projects that then remain incomplete and
never see the light of day as part of something useful.
It's like comparing a bicycle to a car engine. Yeah, the car engine can allow
to build a nice car but it's worthless on it's own and at least the bicycle can
get somewhere faster. Even a skate or roller-blades are more useful.
How much development has it even been in any D tools in D lately (in the last
year or so)?
That's not the point i meant, neither: a parser for D (& in d) is, imo, a far
smaller project than a general-purpose parsing lib. Why do you think the opposite?
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
