Thread overview | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
October 30, 2013 Please stop doing this. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Stop modifying the language without also modifying the language spec. Seriously. Stop it. Pull requests that modify the parser should be rejected unless they also have the corresponding changes to the language grammar. I spend a decent amount of my spare time on D development tooling and I'm getting sick of the "Your parser rejects X", "X isn't in the language spec", "DMD accepts X" cycle. The current situation is that the only REAL documentation on D's syntax is the front-end source code, and this is ridiculous. |
October 30, 2013 Re: Please stop doing this. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Brian Schott Attachments:
| actually the author of Dscanner would probably feel the same: I've reported a number of issues that were due to mismatch bw D spec and dmd: https://github.com/Hackerpilot/Dscanner/issues?state=open On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Brian Schott <briancschott@gmail.com>wrote: > Stop modifying the language without also modifying the language spec. > > Seriously. > > Stop it. > > Pull requests that modify the parser should be rejected unless they also have the corresponding changes to the language grammar. > > I spend a decent amount of my spare time on D development tooling and I'm getting sick of the "Your parser rejects X", "X isn't in the language spec", "DMD accepts X" cycle. > > The current situation is that the only REAL documentation on D's syntax is the front-end source code, and this is ridiculous. > |
October 30, 2013 Re: Please stop doing this. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Timothee Cour | On Wednesday, 30 October 2013 at 20:00:00 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
> actually the author of Dscanner would probably feel the same:
> I've reported a number of issues that were due to mismatch bw D spec and
> dmd:
> https://github.com/Hackerpilot/Dscanner/issues?state=open
Just in case : Brian is the author of Dscanner ;)
|
October 30, 2013 Re: Please stop doing this. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dicebot | We need to go deeper... That is recursive reference... It's not stoppable... Real guys write binary code directly and then source code as documentation. ;) |
October 30, 2013 Re: Please stop doing this. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Brian Schott | On 10/30/2013 12:04 PM, Brian Schott wrote: > Pull requests that modify the parser should be rejected unless they also > have the corresponding changes to the language grammar. Agreed. Your tool should be incorporated into the build (or release) steps. Ali |
October 31, 2013 Re: Please stop doing this. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Ali Çehreli | On 10/30/13 6:09 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 12:04 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
>
> > Pull requests that modify the parser should be rejected unless they also
> > have the corresponding changes to the language grammar.
>
> Agreed. Your tool should be incorporated into the build (or release) steps.
>
> Ali
>
As well as every other tool that uses D.
|
October 31, 2013 Re: Please stop doing this. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Ary Borenszweig | On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 16:57:24 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> As well as every other tool that uses D.
It has been already discussed as impractical. While easy CI for D projects is important, it should be in separate test suite.
|
October 31, 2013 Re: Please stop doing this. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dicebot | On 10/31/13 2:15 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 16:57:24 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> As well as every other tool that uses D.
>
> It has been already discussed as impractical. While easy CI for D
> projects is important, it should be in separate test suite.
I wasn't serious.
What I'm saying, the solution isn't "DScanner should be incorporated into the build step".
The simplest solution is to go slower, paying attention to these details and maintaining consistency in the language and the specs.
|
October 31, 2013 Re: Please stop doing this. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Ali Çehreli | On Wednesday, 30 October 2013 at 21:09:09 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 12:04 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
>
> > Pull requests that modify the parser should be rejected
> unless they also
> > have the corresponding changes to the language grammar.
>
> Agreed. Your tool should be incorporated into the build (or release) steps.
>
> Ali
I'm not sure how it would be useful there.
|
October 31, 2013 Re: Please stop doing this. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Brian Schott | On 10/31/2013 11:46 AM, Brian Schott wrote:> On Wednesday, 30 October 2013 at 21:09:09 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: >> On 10/30/2013 12:04 PM, Brian Schott wrote: >> >> > Pull requests that modify the parser should be rejected >> unless they also >> > have the corresponding changes to the language grammar. >> >> Agreed. Your tool should be incorporated into the build (or release) >> steps. >> >> Ali > > I'm not sure how it would be useful there. I imagined using it as a tool to make sure that the new dmd will not break existing parsing or language spec. Although I am not sure what kind of test can verify that, the idea would be to notice that some perhaps implicit spec is about to be changed. Ali |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation