"Helium" <Helium_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bh5489$15nn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >The biggest improvement the D grammar has over C/C++ is that it does not require semantic information in order to lex or to parse. This makes it a *lot* easier to build syntax sensitive editors and other types of code analysis tools.
> But are there any tools like this? e.g. a refactoring tool? I haven't seen
one.

No, not yet. But there will be.

If you're interested in critiquing the grammar in the D documentation, I can work on improving it.

Peter Hercek wrote:
> So, if somebody wants to move D grammar on, please respond to this
>  message (to group of course). But it requires a lot of source code
>  studying unfortunately! I would tell that D grammar is protected through
>  obcurity :o). Seriously now, I may be helpfull with some tools to look
>  up trivial problems etc.

I'm willing to take it on.  I've had a fair amount of experience with paser generators.  With bison's latest upgrades, and some work, I bet I get it to work.

Bill

I would like to do so, but not from the current state of the web site.
 I think the grammar must be hard to maintain ... it is distribueted to
 a lot of pages. Do you generate them somehow? How you keep it
 up to date?
I prefer to critique one file with the grammar, preferably in the format
 attached in my previous message. The file can have sections,
 like the C# [http://peter.hercek.sk/c-sharp-grammar.html], actually it
 already has eg ``0Lexical` (the number zero is the nest level). We can
 include some remarks etc. For me this was a way to check posibilities
 of XSLT. I can generate more files (may be a file for each section) to
 include it into different pages. But then cross-links between different
 pages would not work, or we need some good naming convention
 derived from section names or something similar.
It is a pain to extract grammar from the webpages and transform it
 into something usable for automatic processing. I'm lazy to do it
 manually and it is error prone too.
Check also my response to Bil Cox. If he finaly decides to analyze your
 code, you can get a good grammar for free :) Then we can cut off
 sections for you to replace in your pages?
I believe we can figure it out somehow together.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bha72n$b1f$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> If you're interested in critiquing the grammar in the D documentation, I can work on improving it.

Cool, I did it this way last time.
Pulled out the grammar from web pages and created the text file
 (this was pain, because I was not able to automate this completely!)
Generated an XML description of the grammar from the text file
 using antlr.
The XML file was transormed to HTML using XSLT.

If you would create directly a bison grammar description (this may
 be easier finaly), I should be able to process the bison file (I hope its
 grammar is not too complicated without C code) and get the final
 HTML. Till now I only thought to genereate antlr grammar description
 to check the grammar for more complicated errors. Simple errors (like
 multiple definitions for a symbol, no definition for a symbol) can be
 detected during translation to HTML. I can get you these errors for
 the file I attached previously, if you think this can help you.

I guess bison/LARL(1) and antlr/LL(k) are not the same, but who cares
 provideded that at least one of them is available.


"Bill Cox" <bill@viasic.com> wrote in message news:bhas3p$vtm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Peter Hercek wrote:
> > So, if somebody wants to move D grammar on, please respond to this
> >  message (to group of course). But it requires a lot of source code
> >  studying unfortunately! I would tell that D grammar is protected through
> >  obcurity :o). Seriously now, I may be helpfull with some tools to look
> >  up trivial problems etc.
>
> I'm willing to take it on.  I've had a fair amount of experience with paser generators.  With bison's latest upgrades, and some work, I bet I get it to work.
>
> Bill
>

Hi, Peter.

I'll give it a try.  I'll start with your grammar file.

Bill

Peter Hercek wrote:
> Cool, I did it this way last time.
> Pulled out the grammar from web pages and created the text file
>  (this was pain, because I was not able to automate this completely!)
> Generated an XML description of the grammar from the text file
>  using antlr.
> The XML file was transormed to HTML using XSLT.
> 
> If you would create directly a bison grammar description (this may
>  be easier finaly), I should be able to process the bison file (I hope its
>  grammar is not too complicated without C code) and get the final
>  HTML. Till now I only thought to genereate antlr grammar description
>  to check the grammar for more complicated errors. Simple errors (like
>  multiple definitions for a symbol, no definition for a symbol) can be
>  detected during translation to HTML. I can get you these errors for
>  the file I attached previously, if you think this can help you.
> 
> I guess bison/LARL(1) and antlr/LL(k) are not the same, but who cares
>  provideded that at least one of them is available.
> 
> 
> "Bill Cox" <bill@viasic.com> wrote in message news:bhas3p$vtm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Peter Hercek wrote:
>>
>>>So, if somebody wants to move D grammar on, please respond to this
>>> message (to group of course). But it requires a lot of source code
>>> studying unfortunately! I would tell that D grammar is protected through
>>> obcurity :o). Seriously now, I may be helpfull with some tools to look
>>> up trivial problems etc.
>>
>>I'm willing to take it on.  I've had a fair amount of experience with
>>paser generators.  With bison's latest upgrades, and some work, I bet I
>>get it to work.
>>
>>Bill
>>
> 
> 
> 

In article <bhdv9c$vum$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Bill Cox says...
>
>Hi, Peter.
>
>I'll give it a try.  I'll start with your grammar file.
>
>Bill

Hi.

I've gotten started.  The grammar needs a lot of work.  Here's my changed version.

There are several undefined rules.  I can make them up, but I could use some help from Walter on a couple...

I need some help with these
---------------------------------
Invariant - from module.html
Type - used all over
BasicType2 - from declaration.html
FunctionDeclarator - from declaration.html

I think I can figure these out...
---------------------------------
Constructor
Destructor
StaticConstructor
StaticDestructor
Unittest

I haven't looked at these yet, but they aren't defined in the grammar file...
---------------------------------
Declarator
VersionAttribute
NumericLiteral
LabeledStatement
DoWhileStatement
AssignmentExpression
Parameter
AsmInstruction

All the web pages are html pages written by hand.

"Peter Hercek" <vvp@no.post.spam.sk> wrote in message news:bhce0l$2g97$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I would like to do so, but not from the current state of the web site.
>  I think the grammar must be hard to maintain ... it is distribueted to
>  a lot of pages. Do you generate them somehow? How you keep it
>  up to date?
> I prefer to critique one file with the grammar, preferably in the format
>  attached in my previous message. The file can have sections,
>  like the C# [http://peter.hercek.sk/c-sharp-grammar.html], actually it
>  already has eg ``0Lexical` (the number zero is the nest level). We can
>  include some remarks etc. For me this was a way to check posibilities
>  of XSLT. I can generate more files (may be a file for each section) to
>  include it into different pages. But then cross-links between different
>  pages would not work, or we need some good naming convention
>  derived from section names or something similar.
> It is a pain to extract grammar from the webpages and transform it
>  into something usable for automatic processing. I'm lazy to do it
>  manually and it is error prone too.
> Check also my response to Bil Cox. If he finaly decides to analyze your
>  code, you can get a good grammar for free :) Then we can cut off
>  sections for you to replace in your pages?
> I believe we can figure it out somehow together.
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:bha72n$b1f$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > If you're interested in critiquing the grammar in the D documentation, I
can
> > work on improving it.
>
>
>