[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [cdt-dev] JavaCC and the JJ file.
|
Hi,
Thanks, very helpful! What's the first thing our test group did? Import K&R
style C sources and complain about the outline view. They have a valid
point. About 25% of our new customer engagements involve evals on K&R source.
Thanks!
-Chris
At 12:09 PM 3/4/2003 -0500, Sebastien Marineau wrote:
Just as an FYI, I emailed Chris the .jj file.
Unfortunately, because of licensing, the file could
not be put in the CDT CVS repository.
Sebastien
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Songer [mailto:songer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 6:33 PM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] JavaCC and the JJ file.
>
>
> Hi!
>
> I agree, but I would still like the jj file used to create
> the current
> parser just because we are productizing first release based
> on 1.0.1 and
> our usability testing is coming back with some issues that
> will be easy to
> fix with the jj in hand. It does seem clear that the current
> parser is a
> derived work of http://www.cobase.cs.ucla.edu/pub/javacc/CPLUSPLUS.jj
> unless there is just some strange Jungian collective
> unconscious thing
> going on. I'm just hoping it was pre-compile ported to cdt
> rather than post
> compile ported (ugh!)
>
> I appreciate any pointers to this file and the JavaCC version
> and make
> process used to build it. If it's not there, I'm not quite
> sure where to
> look next.
>
> Thanks!
> -Chris
>
> At 05:51 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Sebastien Marineau wrote:
>
> > > What I would like to shoot for is that we merge the
> > > NewParser1 branch into
> > > HEAD sometime next month so that we can ensure that we are
> > > concentrating our
> > > efforts on the solution going forward. A preference could be
> > > provided to
> > > allow the user/developer to choose their parsing framework
> > > for the outline
> > > view in order to minimize the risk regarding 1.0.2 quality.
> > >
> > > Not that I'm officially committing just yet (as I'm still
> > > pounding through
> > > the ANSI C++ grammar as I write this) ... I'm just wondering
> > > if anyone has
> > > an opinion about this strategy.
> >
> >Agree 100%. The sooner we get the new parser itto the head branch,
> >the sooner we can put miles on in. I also agree with you that
> >scarce development time will be better spent on the new parser,
> >as opposed to fixing the old one.
> >
> >My 0.02$ :-)
> >
> >Sebastien
> > >
> > > JohnC
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Schaefer, Doug [mailto:dschaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:35 AM
> > > To: 'cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx'
> > > Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] JavaCC and the JJ file.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Alain,
> > >
> > > We'll also take a look at when we can get enough of the new
> > > parser working
> > > to generate ICElements as well. If this is soon, it might be
> > > the better way
> > > to go.
> > >
> > > Doug Schaefer
> > > Senior Staff Software Engineer
> > > Rational - the software development company
> > > Ottawa (Kanata), Ontario, Canada
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alain Magloire [mailto:alain@xxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: February 25, 2003 8:03 PM
> > > To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] JavaCC and the JJ file.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There are quite a few things that the current parser
> > > doesn't pick up.
> > > > The one that is bugging me lately is the WINAPI and
> friends macros
> > > > that blow
> > > up
> > > > the function they are modifying. We need to get something
> > > in for the
> > > April
> > > > delivery (can I call this 1.0.2?) to bring the quality
> level of the
> > > outline
> > > > view a bit higher that what we've got.
> > > >
> > > > Alain, since we're not scheduled to release the new parser
> > > until after
> > > > April, would you be interested in committing the work
> you have done
> > > > with
> > > the
> > > > old IBM parser? Or fire a patch at me so that I could
> > > polish it off
> > > > and
> > > get
> > > > it in? Then, we should also be able to add in the K&R
> > > param decls as
> > > > well (hopefully easy...).
> > >
> > > I will take a look at it again, seems so long. To get it
> > > going, I wrote a
> > > basic C Preprocessor(although evaluation of expression was
> > > still missing)
> > > and moved things around to generate the ICElement. Let me
> > > see, if I can dig
> > > this out again.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cdt-dev mailing list
> > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cdt-dev mailing list
> > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cdt-dev mailing list
> > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > >
> >_______________________________________________
> >cdt-dev mailing list
> >cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
