D sandbox?

[DavidL]

BCS Wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 

Ahh, yet, LLVM, GCC are possible options. And I personally want to make it a script too.