Jump to page: 1 2
Thread overview
Please stop doing this.
Oct 30, 2013
Brian Schott
Oct 30, 2013
Timothee Cour
Oct 30, 2013
Dicebot
Oct 30, 2013
Michael
Oct 30, 2013
Ali Çehreli
Oct 31, 2013
Ary Borenszweig
Oct 31, 2013
Dicebot
Oct 31, 2013
Ary Borenszweig
Oct 31, 2013
Brian Schott
Oct 31, 2013
Ali Çehreli
Nov 01, 2013
Kagamin
October 30, 2013
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

« First   ‹ Prev
1 2