Skip to content
This repository

HTTPS clone URL

Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with HTTPS or Subversion.

Download ZIP

A D language port of dmd's Parser and Lexer, without the weird C++ baggage

branch: master

Fetching latest commit…

Octocat-spinner-32-eaf2f5

Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time

Octocat-spinner-32 dmd
Octocat-spinner-32 NOTES
Octocat-spinner-32 README
Octocat-spinner-32 build.sh
Octocat-spinner-32 license.txt
Octocat-spinner-32 main.d
Octocat-spinner-32 main2.d
Octocat-spinner-32 test.d
README
ddmd-clean README, by Zach the Mystic a.k.a. Zach Tollen

see NOTES for updates, etc.

Hi, thanks for reading me.

ddmd-clean is Digital Mars D ported to the D Programming Language. Instead of
porting everything, which would be overwhelming, ddmd-clean has only ported
dmd's Lexer, Parser, and Pretty-Printing capabilities. I started with ddmd
(http://www.dsource.org/projects/ddmd), and then cut out all the semantic and
backend. But the real work was in converting all the weird C++ style code to
much awesomer D equivalents.

To witness the power of what's already here, first take a look at main.d. Then,
simply type:

ddmd-clean$ ./build.sh

or its equivalent:

ddmd-clean$ rdmd -J./dmd main

Zach

p.s. Note about the GPL license: I would much rather this be Boost or some
other license, but unless I get explicit permission, it must remain GPL only.
Indeed, reading the GPL sends an Orwellian shiver down my spine with the misuse
of the word "free" (a clearer and more precise legal term would be
"anti-proprietary", no?) to describe their software. I'm not sure exactly why
anyone would chose this license for their computer programs. Even assuming sound
reasons for including similarly anti-proprietary terms in a license, the
tone of the GPL is so juvenile as to preclude it in my mind from being taken
seriously. I'm sure there are good reasons and bad reasons for wanting to make
your software un-privatizable, but the only good reason to choose the GPL is if
you simply can't find a license which offers the same terms without the
same juvenile leftist nonsense, and you don't have time to write one yourself,
which I assume must be the case with dmd's otherwise decent and reasonable
copyright holders. 

To make my point clearer, I have rewritten the program's license as I would LIKE
to see it:

               NOTE: NOT THIS PROGRAM'S CURRENT LICENSE!!

/*
 *  Copyright (c) 1999-2008 by Digital Mars
 *  The original author(s) of this software have placed significant 
 *  restrictions on how it may be used. While this happens to be
 *  "free software" according to the definition used by the Free Software
 *  Foundation, it is not really free. Any redistribution in any form of
 *  this software must adhere to the following restrictions:
 *
 *  o  Any distribution of any program which includes any part of this 
 *     software either in source or in binary form MUST be accompanied
 *     by said program's own complete source code.
 *  o  Any distribution of any program which includes any part of this 
 *     software must display this license and be made available under the
 *     terms of this license.
 *  o  This license may not be removed or altered from any distribution of
 *     this software.
 *
 */

Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.