Complexity nomenclature
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Dec 7 05:46:12 PST 2015
On 12/7/15 5:14 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> D does not allow overloading of syntax to the extent necessary to make
> similar things really pleasant in the long run, and it has been
> repeatedly argued that this is a good thing; that custom parsing should
> be used instead. It is easy to align the parser with D syntax. Anyway,
> syntax is not the problem here, and the implementation can be downgraded
> to not support parsing and/or proper names at any point.
I fail to see how no parens after log or "^" in lieu "^^" would make a
positive difference. What would be a few examples of things that won't
work pleasantly enough?
I'm not sure whether the DSL argument is well applied here. Clearly
using D expressions for e.g. regex or SQL syntax would be at best
avoided in favor of a DSL. In this case we're defining an algebra over
restricted expressions, which are a subset of the usual mathematical
expressions that D's syntax already emulates.
Looks like a debate on whether to choose one standard language vs. an
obscure one (in this case invented ad-hoc) is starting. This is deja vu
all over again :o).
I hope you won't mind if I give your idea a slightly different angle.
Andrei
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list