On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 20:31:18 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> actually, changing parsers is not that fun, 'cause writing parser needs
> "inner knowledge" about compiler and it's AST. and writing complete
> parser is very tedious. and you will not be able to write "whitespace
> sensitive" parser anyway, 'cause it needs new scanner and lexer.

If it changes a lot then you can do it as a builtin preprocessor that compiles to D then hand it over to the regular parser.

> in other words: i'm not ready for this challenge yet. i'd better stick
> with my patches and leave custom parsers for somebody else.

Mhmmm, and here I thought I could lure you into paving the way for my own ambitious syntactical changes… ;-)

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 20:35:05 +0000
via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> If it changes a lot then you can do it as a builtin preprocessor that compiles to D then hand it over to the regular parser.
but you can do it as an external tool. if new parser is too "far way" from D, this is easier than patching the D compiler. and we have Dscanner to parse D code. my patches are relatively small and it's easier to integrate 'em into existing D parser.

but yes, you will lose CTFE this way.

On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 20:54:55 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> but you can do it as an external tool. if new parser is too "far way"
> from D, this is easier than patching the D compiler. and we have
> Dscanner to parse D code. my patches are relatively small and

The change-log for the ASTs don't look too bad to me when glancing over it. If you want to affect the syntax then you probably will need to release binary builds as well as patches. Maybe following the major revisions of ldc might be less work than tracking dmd.

On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 20:18:24 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> I agree with monarch_data, this is the executive summary, the salient point, the money shot, etc.
>
> +1 from me as the self-proclaimed resident @safe-ty philosopher. We might want to think about fixing the immediately invoked delegate literal inlining problem.
>
> David

I wouldn't expect LDC or GDC to have problem with that. Do they ?

On 3 Sep 2014 04:00, "deadalnix via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 20:18:24 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with monarch_data, this is the executive summary, the salient
point, the money shot, etc.
>>
>>
>> +1 from me as the self-proclaimed resident @safe-ty philosopher. We
might want to think about fixing the immediately invoked delegate literal inlining problem.
>>
>> David
>
>
> I wouldn't expect LDC or GDC to have problem with that. Do they ?

For the time being, they are as expensive as virtual calls.

Iain.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 02:51:24 +0000
via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> If you want to affect the syntax then you probably will need to release binary builds as well as patches.
nononono, i don't want to go into it. ;-)
building DMD is easy and fast. and i'm not sure that i can redistribute
DMD binaries anyway.

> Maybe following the major revisions of ldc might be less work than tracking dmd.
i like to see what's coming, so i'm updating and rebuilding DMD at least once per day. it's easy to keep everything in sync with relativelty small changes.

besides, i don't like LLVM. ;-)

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 02:51:24 +0000
via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

p.s. eventually i will come to AST and sematics too. fear everyone! ;-)

On Wednesday, 3 September 2014 at 09:13:41 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> i like to see what's coming, so i'm updating and rebuilding DMD at
> least once per day. it's easy to keep everything in sync with
> relativelty small changes.

Whoa, great to see that you are enthusiastic!

> besides, i don't like LLVM. ;-)

So you will have to build your own backend too! :]
Out of curiosity, what is it about LLVM that you don't like?

>p.s. eventually i will come to AST and sematics too. fear everyone! ;-)

That's the spirit! Looking forward too it. :-)

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:43:47 +0000
via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> > besides, i don't like LLVM. ;-)
> So you will have to build your own backend too! :]
sometimes i'm thinking about writing backend that generates C++ code (not human-readable, with templates expanded and so on, just to use already available C++ compiler).

> Out of curiosity, what is it about LLVM that you don't like?
license and apples. ;-) i prefer gcc. i don't know gcc internals, so can't help Iain, but i'm backporting some of my patches and mainline bugfixes to current gdc (2.065). when we got 2.066 landed i'll try to keep patches for both DMD and GDC in sync. sorry, no LDC support is planned.

> That's the spirit!
i just have no life. ;-)

On Wednesday, 3 September 2014 at 06:37:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> For the time being, they are as expensive as virtual calls.
>
> Iain.

WUT ???

How come ? The address of the call is know at compile time, the
optimizer should see through this, no ?