I wanted rust to stay LL(k) ideally for k=1. I also wanted its lexical grammar to stay regular. I was sad when it lost the latter, am sad if it's currently losing the former, and strongly reject the "it's not so bad" narrative in the grammatical complexity section of that RFC.
-
-
syntax highlighting parsers don't need to handle this :) nor does rustfmt but yes, I agree with your general point wrt proc macros
-
Syntax highlighting doesn’t even need to parse the language, only lex it.
- 17 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
for some uses, but not all- especially in rust where macros are always self-contained syntax trees, as opposed to c where macros can mess up your delimiters
-
Can you describe a useful, practical tool that does not expand macros?
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
We had this discussion early on in Rust’s lifetime. Making the language more difficult because it makes easier for people to write non-macro-expanding parsers is not a good trade. It’s making life harder for everyone so that people can write broken tools more easily.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.