Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote: > On 2013-10-05 02:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >> Thanks all involved for the work, first of all Brian. >> >> I have the proverbial good news and bad news. The only bad news is that >> I'm voting "no" on this proposal. >> >> [Snip] > > Is this something in the middle of a hand written lexer and a lexer > automatically generated?
I don't understand this question. > I think we can have both. A hand written lexer, specifically targeted for > D that is very fast. Then a more general lexer that can be used for many > languages. I agree with Artur that this is a fallacy. > I have to say I think this is a bit unfair to dump this huge thing in the > voting thread. You haven't made a single post in the discussion thread > and now you're coming with this big suggestions in the voting thread. The way I see it it's unfair of you to claim that. All I did was to vote and to explain that vote. I was very explicit I don't want to pull rank or anything. Besides it was an idea and such things are hard to time. I think std.d.lexer is a fine product that works as advertised. But I also believe very strongly that it doesn't exploit D's advantages and that adopting it would lock us into a suboptimal API. I have strengthened this opinion only since yesterday morning. Andrei