On 2013-01-25 13:01, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
If I was going with that approach I likely would rather port the MonoD parser since it looks just as good, if not better, and C# would be easier to port to Java than D. But the descent.compiler experience (parser ported from DMD's parser) put me off that approach of porting from a parser in another language (although the VisualD parser might have less shortcomings than using the DMD parser since at least VisualD's parser is designed for IDE use). I want to have more control over the parser, and be able to effect my own changes in it (something tricky if you're porting - unless you give up the porting at some point, and just fork your own version and use ir from there)
I didn't say anything about porting :) I was suggesting you integrate the VisualD parser without porting it. That's why I suggested the one in VisualD and not the one in Mono-D.
-- /Jacob Carlborg
