On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 April 2012 10:46, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez >> <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> But I don't want to turn the diagnostics machinery upside down and >>> implement a "diagnostics internal language" >> >> I do think an internal formatting IL/IR for better representation is >> needed for the >> kind of things you would like to (e.g. colors) to keep things manageable. >> That isn't turning things upside down, and it isn't helpful to view >> it that way. > > I am not opposed to having a diagnostics IL/IR, so you or anyone else > should feel free to start working on it. But after the XML diagnostics > experiment,
The XML diagnostics experiment was an external representation. > I personally don't find it interesting enough to work on > it (specially to start such a project on my own). As a means to get > color output, it would be significantly more code, more invasive > change, require more time and effort and produce potentially more bugs > than the implementation of colors I am proposing above. So I'd rather > work on the latter, even if it is much more limited and less flexible > than a diagnostics IL. the short term desire to add color should not cloud the architectural concerns. I don't want to get into a situation when in 3 months someone come and complain that the diagnostic code is too obscure or to hard to debug, and when pressed to explain declares that it was just out of frustration or irony -- and even if it was just frustration, that is a concern. -- Gaby
