I'm bumping this, because I'm starting to think that people don't view the front page and therefore cannot see this post.
I'll post a new newspost later regarding progress on the operation. Edit:
Actually, maybe I'll just post it here.
I have basically completed getting JDI working on the major platforms (Linux, Windows, Mac OS). The parser completes with less than 300 errors on Linux; I can't give a good estimate on Mac/Windows because I am not the one who tests it on those platforms. While 300 errors may seem like a lot, it really isn't a big deal, because JDI easily recovers from them and continues reading definitions. That's a good behavior to have in a parser whose only objective is to inform on the basics.
Right now I am further reducing that error count and finishing up the parts of JDI upon which ENIGMA's new EDL parser will depend. ENIGMA will, in principle, be able to invoke JDI methods to handle a good amount of EDL parsing. This means that I only have one parser to maintain rather than two; if one is right, both are right. It also means that ENIGMA's lexicography will match that of G++, so we shouldn't have any inconsistencies except due to utter negligence.
I'm going to knock off a few more errors and then begin the new parser methods to build ASTs of entire codes. Since the system will operate with JDI as a basis, you will be able to render your code as an SVG to diagnose any misinterpretations (and, of course, to show it off to your friends
Anyway, I'll report back on how that goes when I'm actually starting the EDL parser. Ciao.Update:
On Linux, I have it down to 215 lines of errors; of those, there are 86 separate errors (problems in the parse process), caused by 21 unique issues with the parser. That last figure, 21, is the number you need to be concerned with. For now, I'm going to leave it, unless correcting the bug that seems to involve the preprocessor is necessary. The preprocessed Windows engine only throws 187 total lines of errors, which means to me that either Windows is much more parser-friendly, or there is a bug with JDI's preprocessor.