Which patches/mods exists for current versions of the DMD parser?

[Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d]

On 16 September 2014 19:53, monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 17:16:28 UTC, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>>
>> On 8 September 2014 10:37, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d
>>>
>>> Attempting to fork D's syntax is harmful to D.  Please stop.
>>
>>
>> You can't stop people from exercising their Freedom #1 (modify) and #3
>> (redistribute modified copies) of software under a free license.
>
>
> Right, but I think that fits in nicely with the "You have the right to do
> it, but I can decide you are an asshole for it".
>
> For instance, I can't stop Ketmar from bitching about the "problems" with D,
> and how his solutions are our godsend, but I can decide that he is also an
> entitled prick who's not even worth taking the time writing off.
>
>> Anyway, it's never been of harm to anyone.  Take Amber for instance,
>> which is a very obvious fork of syntax, right down to a "What we fixed
>> about D" page.
>>
>> https://bitbucket.org/larsivi/amber/wiki/Diff_D1
>>
>> Iain.
>
>
> I'd say it's really a matter of how and why you are doing it, and how you
> are presenting it. The way Ola presented his work looked more like
> experiment and proof of concept. It's constructive. The changes (mostly)
> adhered to D's current philosophy. I think he was just trying to find out
> who was doing the same, and I have no trouble with it.
>
> I can see Dicebot's point of view, but I think it totally blew out of
> proportions after the 1st post.
>
> However, gratuitous (and deliberate) forking of the language just to address
> your own petty design issues I have more problems with. Sure you can do it,
> but I think that if you do, you should GTFO.

s/GTFO/Not expect any support for it here, in both code changes and
runtime anomalies/

It doesn't hurt to say things in the polite manner.

Iain.