UDL: Limitations.
-
I’m sorry, I’m tired to write a long and detailed post right now because of a specific, err, post on this forum and another forum, also some other stuff. I’ll get it simple:
⠀⠀⠀UDL limitations… It is quite bad for me or anyone who wants to do more…
I want to customize my languages even further, but I can only that to a certain, not-so-long extent. Will this be improved soon? What is the future of UDL? Will the limitation got eased off?
⠀⠀⠀I wanted to do something simple, yet it can’t be done, or it can be done but with hacks, or it can be done but it’ll take a complications with other things - This pretty much summed up the restrictive UDL experience on my end. Well, I did replicate Lua a while ago, but I can’t really extend it without breaking my engine (That I use) and the language itself.⠀⠀⠀I hope we’ll get regex or something similar. Because let me be honest with you… I am not a fan of limitations… Well, at least don’t make space as a separator…
⠀
⠀⠀⠀Anyway, thank you for reading. I really looking forward to future UDL improvement and updates.
⠀⠀⠀And stay dehydrated, people. -
The UDL system appears to be the least-likely system to be updated by the main developer. There are many open issues or requests for improvements for UDL , but they don’t seem to get traction. It’s unfortunate.
Fortunately, you aren’t stuck.
You can add extra highlighting to a UDL language using regexes via the script
EnhanceUDLLexer.pythat @Ekopalypse shares in this linked post . (And, similarly, you can extend any builtin lexer withEnhanceAnyBuiltinLexer.pyfound here .)For the long term, you could write a new lexer, or beg or bribe or contract or hire someone to write a lexer. Or you could beg/bribe/contract/hire someone to make the code changes to the main UDL and submit pull requests, which may or may not get incorporated into the main codebase.
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@PeterJones [Forenote: Sorry for the late reply. This will be my usual habit here, though, because I had many things to do in some other places - Well, those sorts of things. Also, I had some problem with composing this reply, kinda…]
[1] Least likely to be updated? Hmm, that is sad, but for some reasons, I can’t really complain about it.
⠀⠀⠀For the open issues and or request not getting traction, yeah, that does sound very unfortunate… Although, I am a bit curious on why. I would like to know if there’s a problem or something regarding UDL development, but this isn’t necessary for me to know, so I could pass on this one.[2] Hoh~? I’m not stuck?
[3] Hmm, this is really interesting. Definitely gunna check those out. Thank you.
[4] Write a new lexer, hum, definitely not doing it anytime “soon”… Beg or bribe to write a new lexer doesn’t sound fun… Contract or hire might be overboard for my project(?)… Requesting code changes sounds reasonable, but I’m not sure on wha- wait… Maybe I need to request the change/extra option of separators from the puny spaces to something else and the inclusion of whitespaces identifier (Since whitespaces are ignored) on a specific section. Yeah… That might work…
⠀⠀⠀Thinking about it, the change shouldn’t be to remove space as a separator or anything altogether but to add an extra option on or for all sections. A checkbox that allows an advanced user to use the advanced feature, such as this or something else - heck, regex would be super great. And then- erm… Nah.
⠀⠀⠀Realistically, that wouldn’t happen. So eh, let’s just cut it there for now. I am a bit tired for it.⠀⠀⠀Anyhow, great reply. +1
⠀
[Note to self: Horribly big line gaping; switch to the normal newline gap instead | Deleted Extra Note section | One missing asterisk (*) for bold format]
[Note to self v2: Why can’t I edit, even after 20 minutes after posting… These notes happen because of that | Deleted unnecessary lines | A terrible mistake for not following my own note]