A gentle critque..

[Dave]

Dave wrote:
> Chad J wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Chad J wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have even more trouble believing that current D compilers shouldn't
>>>> support C plus plus integration just because it might make C plus plus
>>>> compilation a required capability of a D compiler.
>>> Take a look inside one of the STL header files - how can one access it
>>> without being a C compiler?
>> Agreed.  You need C plus plus compilation ability to use C plus plus
>> headers as they are.
>>
>> What I'm talking about though is this notion that DMD supporting C plus
>> plus compilation somehow implies that every D compiler created from then
>> on will also support C plus plus compilation.  I don't agree with that.
>>  I think it reeks of fallacy.
>>
>> I'd say that C plus plus support for the first couple D compilers would
>> make D more likely to become mainstream or become mainstream faster.
>> The objective is no different than that of an external tool that
>> translates C headers into D headers, but it may be easier to do since it
>> puts a fully functional C plus plus parser at your disposal (at least I
>> think it does).  Just make sure to clearly mark the C plus plus
>> capabilities as something DMD specific, a bundled tool really, and
>> everything should be dandy.  Same goes for GDC if it were to add such a
>> faculty.
>>
>

All those "C"'s should read "C plus plus" (what the heck is stripping
the "plus plus"'s for this NG?).

> There seems to be an assumption that converting C to D is a
> straight-forward thing to do, even if you have a C front-end at your
> disposal. Heck, IIRC CFront was eventualy abandoned in part because C
> became complicated enough that a C to C converter was barely feasible
> any longer (beside the obvious other advantages of native C compilers).
> 
> My point is that really what your suggesting is another whole compiler
> here...
> 
> And if you don't have a compiler handy, there are quite a few open
> source and commercial "compiler-compilers" out there, but I've never
> heard of a commercial compiler that has been developed with one of them.
> And, I've rarely heard of any other tools like syntax high-lighters,
> class browsers and such that are developed that way, either. There has
> been quit a few D parser projects started using tools like Antlr, and
> they seem to get 90% there, but then I suspect the developer runs into
> cases where those tools aren't quite flexible enough and/or create very
> bloated and slow compilers.
> 
> All this leads me to conclude that what you're asking for would require
> another hand-made compiler to do properly, and for dubious gain since
> the code created would just be C disguised as D and wouldn't take
> advantage of a host of D's other features.
> 
>> Don't make it part of the spec, but make it part of the toolset.  At
>> least while C plus plus is still popular.