On 10/6/13 1:59 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
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.
I just think that if you were not completely satisfied with the current
API or implementation you could have said so in the discussion thread.
It would have at least given Brian a chance to do something about it,
before the voting began.
I've always thought we must invest effort into generic lexers and
parsers as opposed to ones for dedicated languages, and I have said so
several times, most strongly in
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/jii1gk$76s$1...@digitalmars.com.
When discussion and voting had started, I had acquiesced to not
interfere because I thought I shouldn't discuss a working design against
a hypothetical one. *That* would have been unfair. But now that such a
design exists, I think it's fair to bring it up.
Andrei
