On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:10:08 +0200, Gor Gyolchanyan
<gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway, I'm writing a general-purpose parser base, so i won't need it
for now.
And when i do, I'd like to have a correct grammar definition, so i can
feed it to my parser.
Who should i ask to ensure it's correctness?
Once I'm done, I'll send a pull request for something around
"etc.dcfe" for "D compiler front end".
It won't be perfect, of course, but it will be a start, from which the
front-end would be gradually developed.
I wanna at least have an AST parser by the time i make the pull request.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote:
On 10/23/2011 02:16 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
Yeah, i know about EBNF, but it uses completely different syntax.
I'm really excited about having a standard D compiler front-end as a
library solution, so i though it would be best to parse the syntax
from the syntax definition of dpl.org
That can currently not be done. The syntax specification on dpl.org is
out
of date and contains many errors and inaccuracies. (at least it was
that way
the last time I checked)
I've written a fast and pretty complete D lexer
(https://gist.github.com/1262321).
It is based on a generic lexer component which will generate efficient
matching
functions at compile time (https://gist.github.com/1255439).
I think there are still some compiler bugs to be sorted out so you won't
be able to compile
it out of the box.
martin
