D front-end in D for D

[Gor Gyolchanyan]

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch> wrote:

> On 07/14/2012 05:24 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch
>> <mailto:timon.gehr at gmx.ch>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 07/14/2012 04:44 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>>
>>         ...
>>
>>         For instance, everybody seems to love hard-wiring the syntax
>>         into the
>>         language.
>>
>>
>>     Insignificant example.
>>
>>     Every language _needs_ to have a standard source storage format.
>>
>>
>> Syntax has nothing to do with standard source stage. Why won't the
>> standard source stage be binary,
>>
>
> Obviously syntax has to do with standard source storage. The syntax
> definition can be binary just fine, eg:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Binary_lambda_calculus<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_lambda_calculus>
>
>
>
>  while leaving the human-written part (the syntax)
>>
>
> That is not the definition of _the_ syntax.
>
>  up to the writer?
>>
>>
> This is already the case. Writing a parser that transforms your custom
> syntax to the standard syntax is trivial.
>
> The reason why almost nobody is doing this is the same as the reason
> why almost everyone strives to stick to the same English orthography
> rules.
>

Comparison to English is invalid, because English is extensible. The terms
and their meanings are completely up to the users of the language, while
programming languages are pretty much fixed, while providing a handful of
pre-defined abstractions.

-- 
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120714/bd0ccd48/attachment.html>