> But how is syntax based version control ever supposed to work when we have so many languages that literally parse differently depending on dependencies that aren't even in the codebase?
You create a language geared toward syntax-based version control which doesn't do that, and then relegate syntax-based version control the ghetto based around that language (not offering it as a general-purpose tool for programming in anything).
Do you have an example of a language that parses different because of dependencies?
Languages with user-defined operators with user-defined precedence, like Haskell.
Languages with user-defined subgrammars, like Raku (Perl 6).
Languages with declaration-dependent ambiguity resolution, like C++ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_vexing_parse).
Sure, just plain C can wreck any kind of parsing with its macros.
Technically the parsing itself and the grammar are the same, they don't depend on defined macros. Yes, defining a macro in an included file can make the resulting AST change, but the parsing algorithm doesn't really care about it.
Re:Where is the CRDT for syntax trees
by chriswarbo on Friday December 03, 2021 @07:25PM
(#29437382)
Unfortunately, text-substitution macros (like CPP) pretty much force a source file to be treated as a stream of bytes. They can be handy, but delimited macros (e.g. like Lisps) are much less invasive.
But how is syntax based version control ever supposed to work when we have so many languages that literally parse differently depending on dependencies that aren't even in the codebase? Let alone ones that easily take hours to compile even when they are in the codebase?
Sounds impossible in practice unless we restrict ourselves to sufficiently context free languages.