"weaselcat"  wrote in message news:vlrwhuvaxxhsvvtdztrr@forum.dlang.org...

> what is the point of having a half-assed version in the _standard_ library???

It predates vibe.d's version by many many years, and nobody has fixed or replaced it.  As Andrei said, nobody has even bothered documenting it.  It will most likely stay where it is until there is a suitable replacement. 

"weaselcat"  wrote in message news:cfxrrvjnhlofsxpxxqpx@forum.dlang.org...

> as an addendum, vibe.d reimplements huge amounts of phobos, is there a reason none of this is ever getting upstreamed?

Some of it is blocked waiting on other parts to be implemented, the rest is waiting for someone to champion it. 

On 3/17/2015 9:39 AM, Baz wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 21:40:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 3/15/2015 2:34 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> P.S. Also need to include all the examples in the dlang reference as unittest
>>> cases.
>>
>> Also, HexStrings can handle w and d postfixes. Use the lexer.c code for
>> TOK::hexStringConstant() as a guide to be sure all the permutations are covered.
>
> Hi, i propose this:
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3058
>

Thanks!

On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 at 14:14:59 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> Yes, but only a very little bit.  How much code could you delete from a D lexer if they were removed?

The compiler lexer can be of arbitrary complexity, because it's already written. If you write a compiler, you just grab the ready lexer and use it, you don't need to count lines. The problem is with other, non-compiler tools.

"Kagamin"  wrote in message news:pltiewdojqrmgxrwhzoo@forum.dlang.org...

> The compiler lexer can be of arbitrary complexity, because it's already written. If you write a compiler, you just grab the ready lexer and use it, you don't need to count lines. The problem is with other, non-compiler tools.

I have no idea what your point is.  Lexer complexity matters for every tool that needs to lex D code. 

On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 at 08:45:53 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> I have no idea what your point is.  Lexer complexity matters for every tool that needs to lex D code.

Language complexity matters for tools. Lexer complexity is only download and build, it doesn't matter what is the lexer, complexity is roughly the same, only compilation of bigger lexer can take longer if it has more lines.

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 07:45:54PM +1100, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> "Kagamin"  wrote in message news:pltiewdojqrmgxrwhzoo@forum.dlang.org...
> 
> >The compiler lexer can be of arbitrary complexity, because it's already written. If you write a compiler, you just grab the ready lexer and use it, you don't need to count lines. The problem is with other, non-compiler tools.
> 
> I have no idea what your point is.  Lexer complexity matters for every tool that needs to lex D code.

Not if we have libdmdlexer that they can reuse... ;-)


T

-- 
A computer doesn't mind if its programs are put to purposes that don't match their names. -- D. Knuth

On 3/17/15 5:34 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu"  wrote in message
> news:me9s2m$308v$1@digitalmars.com...
>
>> It pains me to no end to see energy going in all the wrong places.
>> Just now I was reviewing some code using std.json. Most everybody
>> admits that library could be improved or rewritten. There's been some
>> work on the latter, which has not been pursued to completion. Until
>> then, we've had for _years_ a mediocre - albeit let's say passable -
>> implementation with a shockingly bad documentation -
>> http://dlang.org/phobos/std_json.html has not ONE example, like
>> literally not ONE line of code on it. It's been like that for YEARS.
>> I'd find it difficult to imagine a simpler and more impactful way to
>> contribute to D, than improving on that documentation.
>
> Just use vibe.d's json library.

That was just an example. -- Andrei

On 3/17/15 5:45 PM, weaselcat wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 at 00:34:06 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu"  wrote in message
>> news:me9s2m$308v$1@digitalmars.com...
>>
>>> It pains me to no end to see energy going in all the wrong places.
>>> Just now I was reviewing some code using std.json. Most everybody
>>> admits that library could be improved or rewritten. There's been some
>>> work on the latter, which has not been pursued to completion. Until
>>> then, we've had for _years_ a mediocre - albeit let's say passable -
>>> implementation with a shockingly bad documentation -
>>> http://dlang.org/phobos/std_json.html has not ONE example, like
>>> literally not ONE line of code on it. It's been like that for YEARS.
>>> I'd find it difficult to imagine a simpler and more impactful way to
>>> contribute to D, than improving on that documentation.
>>
>> Just use vibe.d's json library.
>
> what is the point of having a half-assed version in the _standard_
> library???

The irony is what's now is std is usable albeit "meh", but so poorly documented it looks damn straight useless. I need to figure why folks willing to write small novels in this forum will neglect literally for years to apply some of that energy to D's documentation. -- Andrei

On 18/03/2015 14:45, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 07:45:54PM +1100, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> "Kagamin"  wrote in message news:pltiewdojqrmgxrwhzoo@forum.dlang.org...
>>
>>> The compiler lexer can be of arbitrary complexity, because it's
>>> already written. If you write a compiler, you just grab the ready
>>> lexer and use it, you don't need to count lines. The problem is with
>>> other, non-compiler tools.
>>
>> I have no idea what your point is.  Lexer complexity matters for every
>> tool that needs to lex D code.
>
> Not if we have libdmdlexer that they can reuse... ;-)

Some tools can't require D due to project limitations.