std.d.lexer requirements

[Walter Bright]

On 8/7/2012 7:15 AM, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
> Also, what I proposed was a *static* decision: with SkipErrors { no,
> yes }. With a static if inside its guts, the lexer could change its
> behavior accordingly.

Yes, I understand about static if decisions :-) hell I invented them!


> Walter, with all due respect, you sometimes give the impression to
> forget we are talking about D and go back to deeply entrenched C-isms.

Delegates are not C-isms.


> Compile-time decisions can be used to avoid any overhead as long as
> you have a clear idea of what the two code paths should look like.

Yes, I understand that. There's also a point about adding too much complexity to 
the interface. The delegate callback reduces complexity in the interface.

> And, as Christophe said, ranges are a powerful API. In another thread
> Simen and me did some comparison between C-like code and code using
> only ranges upon ranges upon ranges. A (limited!) difference in speed
> appeared only for very long calculations.

That's good, and you really don't need to sell me on ranges - I'm already sold.