On 2016-06-14 11:31, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev, WebFreak001, ketmar, and Brian Schott for
replying to my email about a grammar specification for D usable for
IDEs and other tools.
It seems that the D language is defined not by a re-purposable, machine
readable grammar specification, but solely by the DMD compiler, the
parse of which is not defined by a re-purposable, machine readable
grammar. Thus any grammar specification that is created is unlikely to
be correct and so all tooling and IDE support has to be based on
incorrect data. Given the biggest problem with D is, according to the
recent survey, tooling and IDE support, you get the feeling this is not
an enviable position for a programming language to be in.
How many IDE's/editors do actually use something like EBNF? I know
TextMate doesn't. It uses some kind of rules with extended regular
expressions (simplified explanation).
--
/Jacob Carlborg
