A gentle critque..

[Dave]

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.
>

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.