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.py that @Ekopalypse shares in this linked post. (And, similarly, you can extend any builtin lexer with EnhanceAnyBuiltinLexer.py found 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]


Log in to reply