35 ms·
It is a broken approach. A much better way is to have a standard protocol (see slime for example, or IPython, or whatever else), and use the same tools as your
by sklogic 11y ago
It is a broken approach. A much better way is to have a standard protocol (see slime for example, or IPython, or whatever else), and use the same tools as your compiler does, instead of reimplementing all the crap over and over again from the language standard.
I expect that not that many C++ tools that do not use libclang will remain.
- lmm 11y agoAt that point you're essentially advocating treating libclang as the standard. All the usual problems of "the implementation is the spec" apply.
- sklogic 11y agolibclang is just an example, maybe not an ideal one. But, yes, I'm advocating for an executable language spec, one that you'd use as a (probably suboptimal, but canonical) implementation. A good example of such a thing would be something like https://github.com/kframework/c-semantics https://github.com/kframework/c-semantics