D front-end in D for D
Timon Gehr
timon.gehr at gmx.ch
Sat Jul 14 09:09:38 PDT 2012
On 07/14/2012 05:42 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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,
They need to agree on a common set of terms and meanings.
> while programming languages are pretty much fixed, while providing a
> handful of pre-defined abstractions.
>
As I already argued, programming languages are just as extensible.
Depending on the amount of extensions, you might have to write your own
compiler.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list