On 07-Sep-2015 08:25, anonymous wrote:
On Monday 07 September 2015 02:24, Idan Arye wrote:
That's not considered as syntax check - that's an earlier stage
of the compilation process called "lexical
analysis"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_analysis)
From the Wikipedia article: "a
On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 02:50:06 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 23:33:17 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
I'd always thought Javascript was an ideal extension language
for a text editor.
Well, I don't think *ideal*, but indeed, it wouldn't be bad.
C'mon, kind sirs!
On 2015-09-06 21:32, Prudence wrote:
template X(Y)
{
string X = Y.stringof;
}
auto s = X({int 3;})
Of course, doesn't work!!
You might be interested in this [1].
[1] http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP50
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 20:22:23 UTC, Zoadian wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 19:32:58 UTC, Prudence wrote:
template X(Y)
{
string X = Y.stringof;
}
[...]
as you'd have to write a parser for other languages why not
just use strings? you can already do this:
template
On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 00:34:20 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
Compare it to Ruby's heredoc, where the chosen terminator
string can be used as an
hint(https://github.com/joker1007/vim-ruby-heredoc-syntax).
Or D's heredoc strings, yes, we have them too:
http://dlang.org/lex.html (search for
On Monday 07 September 2015 02:24, Idan Arye wrote:
> That's not considered as syntax check - that's an earlier stage
> of the compilation process called "lexical
> analysis"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_analysis)
>From the Wikipedia article: "a lexer is generally combined with a
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 22:37:16 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 21:16:18 UTC, Prudence wrote:
[...]
There already is a kind of "code string":
interpret(q{
var a = 2;
var b += a;
});
It doesn't do any kind of syntax check, but there again
On Monday 07 September 2015 00:37, cym13 wrote:
> There already is a kind of "code string":
>
> interpret(q{
> var a = 2;
> var b += a;
> });
>
> It doesn't do any kind of syntax check, but there again how do
> you want to have syntax check for any language? The D
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 19:32:58 UTC, Prudence wrote:
template X(Y)
{
string X = Y.stringof;
}
[...]
as you'd have to write a parser for other languages why not just
use strings? you can already do this:
template X(string Y)
{
enum X = Y;
}
auto s = X!q{int 3;};
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 20:38:44 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 20:22:23 UTC, Zoadian wrote:
obviously X has to be a compiletime js->d compiler.
Just a fun fact: my script.d's interpreter is itself CTFEable
in modern dmd!
import arsd.script;
void main() {
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 23:00:21 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 22:37:16 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 21:16:18 UTC, Prudence wrote:
[...]
There already is a kind of "code string":
interpret(q{
var a = 2;
var b += a;
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 23:48:30 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 23:40:58 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Monday 07 September 2015 00:37, cym13 wrote:
There already is a kind of "code string":
interpret(q{
var a = 2;
var b += a;
});
It doesn't
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 23:40:58 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Monday 07 September 2015 00:37, cym13 wrote:
There already is a kind of "code string":
interpret(q{
var a = 2;
var b += a;
});
It doesn't do any kind of syntax check, but there again how do
you
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 23:40:58 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Monday 07 September 2015 00:37, cym13 wrote:
There already is a kind of "code string":
interpret(q{
var a = 2;
var b += a;
});
It doesn't do any kind of syntax check, but there again how do
you
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 23:33:17 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I'd always thought Javascript was an ideal extension language
for a text editor.
Well, I don't think *ideal*, but indeed, it wouldn't be bad. And
my little thing isn't quite JS, I borrow some ideas from D too.
So it has string
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 21:16:18 UTC, Prudence wrote:
Yeah, but wouldn't it be so much nicer? (and probably
debuggable inline)
interpret({
var a = 5;
a += 2;
a;
}
Not really because that already more-or-less works today (add a q
before that { and it will compile).
The
On 9/6/2015 1:38 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
jsvar.d and script.d can be found here:
https://github.com/adamdruppe/arsd
I'd always thought Javascript was an ideal extension language for a text editor.
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 20:22:23 UTC, Zoadian wrote:
obviously X has to be a compiletime js->d compiler.
Just a fun fact: my script.d's interpreter is itself CTFEable in
modern dmd!
import arsd.script;
void main() {
// script.d is similar to but not identical to javascript
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 21:16:18 UTC, Prudence wrote:
Or, maybe better yet, have the concept of "code strings". which
are strings that are suppose to be interpreted as code. This
then means the compiler just has to do a syntax check for
errors before it does anything else with
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 23:38:51 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 23:00:21 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 22:37:16 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 at 21:16:18 UTC, Prudence wrote:
[...]
There already is a kind of "code string":
template X(Y)
{
string X = Y.stringof;
}
auto s = X({int 3;})
Of course, doesn't work!!
But having the ability to pass code that isn't contained in a
string is very useful!!
1. A new code keyword, similar to alias. Can only be used as
template parameters. If you are worried about
21 matches
Mail list logo
