Walter Bright дµ½: > Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Thursday 21 October 2010 15:01:21 Walter Bright wrote: > >> 5. generally follow along with the C++ one so that they can be maintained > >> in tandem > > > > Does this mean that you want a pseudo-port of the C++ front end's lexer to > > D for > > this? Or are you looking for just certain pieces of it to be similar? > > Yes, but not a straight port. The C++ version has things in it that are > unnecessary for the D version, like the external string table (should use an > associative array instead), the support for lookahead can be put in the > parser, > doesn't tokenize comments, etc. > > Essentially I'd like the D lexer to be self-contained in one file. > > > I haven't looked at the front end code yet, so I don't know how it works > > there, > > but I wouldn't expect it to uses ranges, for instance, so I would expect > > that > > the basic design would naturally stray a bit from whatever was done in C++ > > simply by doing things in fairly idiomatic D. And if I do look at the front > > end > > to see how that's done, there's the issue of the license. As I understand > > it, > > the front end is LGPL, and Phobos is generally Boost, which would mean that > > I > > would be looking at LGPL-licensed code when designing Boost-licensed, even > > though it wouldn't really be copying the code per se since it's a change of > > language (though if you did the whole front end, obviously the license > > issue can > > be waved quite easily). > > Since the license is mine, I can change the D version to the Boost license, > no > problem. > > > > License issues aside, however, I do think that it would make sense for > > std.lang.d.lex to do things similiarly to the C++ front end, even if there > > are a > > number of basic differences. > > Yup. The idea is the D version lexes exactly the same grammar as the dmd one. > The easiest way to ensure that is to do equivalent logic.
dmd2.050 October will release it ? thank's
