Happy New Year

[Rusky]

it's in another segment

[serprex]

On the topic of covering the GML functions and Rusky, I've been working on what Rusky failed at. Except to keep it a hassle for Josh, I've been implementing ds_* functions for a different engine: http://github.com/serprex/dysvk/blob/master/dss.c

[Rusky]

Grammar fail. What exactly did I fail at? Doing all the ds_* functions, yes, but what I did worked.

[RetroX]

TBH, I'd never touch the ds_* functions, ever.  I'd just use STL, instead, or something similar.

[Josh @ Dreamland]

Which will be possible thanks to this EVER-CLOSER-DRAWING TO COMPLETION MOTHER FUCKING PARSER.

[Rusky]

exactly. but they're still good for compatibility.

[Fede-lasse]

Which will be possible thanks to this EVER-CLOSER-DRAWING TO COMPLETION MOTHER FUCKING PARSER.

You gave me a heart attack.

[Micah]

You're still not done with the parser?

[Josh @ Dreamland]

miky:
Specialization and accessing of templates based on enumerated constants is the latest loop I've been thrown for. They've kept coming.

[Micah]

Why can't you leave C++ to gcc? You can still have helpful error messages.

[serprex]

Silly Rusky, that's not failure of grammar; it's ambiguity, something which I'm quite fond of. In this case I disambiguate it though, which I'm not prone to so much

As for Josh and C++, it's his lack of being able to settle. I shouldn't have been surprised he wasn't ready to settle and marry

[Josh @ Dreamland]

I told you, if I'm to be in a gay marriage I at least want it to be polygamist as well.

Also, I want map<>. And stack<>. And anything else C++ has to offer. I Don't want to keep designing files to substitute for headers; I hate that job and as shown on the progress page, I'm bad at it. Serp's right though; I'm unable to settle. Which is why I keep following the loops it throws me for, under the pretense that eventually it will run out of them.

[Rusky]

Why exactly don't you have map and stack without parsing the headers? Your excuse for not writing a full-blown parser is that you're just converting the syntax and that there's no point trying to beat "all those GNUs" working on GCC. But then you go and write a full-blown parser using your not-full-blown parsing system.

Basically: what is your parser doing that GCC doesn't, aside from adding semicolons and parentheses?

[Josh @ Dreamland]

The semicolons are it. For custom structures to work, I have to know their names. Otherwise, "map a;" will be a syntax error or will at very least parse incorrectly. Oh, not to mention GCC isn't going to default all the unused parameters to variant for me, no matter how hard I cry.

[Rusky]

So... is this just a template/structure parser so you can get STL definitions? That's a little better, but then again, is map<var, var> so bad? You already have var doing arrays, no? If people want to take advantage of static typing they'll probably be doing something more like map<string, var> or map<int, string> rather than map<var, var>.