(gee...)
Why? Why GNU C compiler developers didn't do such (obviously useful)
tool? C compiler (some part of it) *is* responsible for parsing,
tokenizing, etc. Why there is development of never-ending buggy
optimizations only[0]?
Matthew, i know you've asked for regular expressions ninjas once, here
simple example.
Syntax highlighting for text editors is the most notable
invention/implementation for ease of programming in last 20 years or so.
Question: why any parser, e.g. GNU/FOSS [C, SED, AWK, ELISP], Perl,
Python, do NOT have option to output OWN highlighted syntax? Don't those
parsers know what they parse, rules, syntax errors, etc.[1]? (Note: at
least framework in parser, so that trivial extending/configuring would be
possible).
Is it really so complex?
=[0]= rant =[0]=
Isn't that hardware had developed in exponential rate toward speed and
cache/RAM size, so any bloat and huge volumes of sources without flexible
configuration systems (to download and work with e.g. only one GCC or
Linux port) are handled quickly?
=[1]= rant =[1]=
No, unreadable and buggy regexp-based highlighting is everywhere with
never-ending features added WRT basic regular expressions!
For those Perl hackers out there: why mister Wall is attributed to
invent non greedy RE match, why he did so by introducing non portable
and non-readable syntax to already crappy RE?
Simple BRE based idea: '\{0, s\}'. Just like `sed` had overcame second
RE basic pronciple: first-match, by using flags 's///here'.
No, let's invent crutches!
Oh, crap....
--
sed 'sed && sh + olecom = love' << ''
-o--=O`C
#oo'L O
<___=E M
--
