D sandbox?

[BCS]

Reply to davidl,

> currently DParser passes some dstress test cases. I'm in the mood of
> glueing
> it with DMD backend.
> With current C++ interface improvements in D, I think DParser is
> possible  to glue with DMD backend. I hope Walter can provide an
> interface , and a  backend library. Though it's a great bunches of
> work :D
> 
> It's still possible to glue with LLVM and take advantage from the work
> done by lindquist. But a general backend interface not only glueing
> with  one backend is better for me in some sense.
> 
> 1. This benefits several scripting langs. Those lang can take
> advantage
> from DMD backend to generate native code.
> 2. The work on DParser can therefore attract more people to help. And
> thus  more bug fixes can be done. DMD C++ frontend might get some
> patches from  those bug fixes.
> 
> 3. DParser itself can create branches as sandboxes to give the
> community  some experiments and coding in D is relatively easier than
> C++ in the  original DMD frontend for the community. So community can
> really make some  experiments on certain branches, and as sandboxes.
> And Walter can view  this sandbox and maybe lucky enough to pick one
> good feature integrated in  DMD.
> 
> 4. This gives us a bit elegance. D compiles D.
> 
> This is *not* an urgent request. Cause DParser compare to DMD frontend
> is
> still not relatively stable. I'm trying to fix those bugs. Thanks to
> dstress. I can get a good many test cases in it.
> Currently I guess about 1/3 test cases pass.
> I'd love to listen how CONs think and how PROs think.
> 
> DavidL
> 

Walter has a standing offer to /sell/ licenses to the backend.