Re: [jdt-core-dev] 1.5 source using a apilevel JLS2

[Philippe P Mulet <philippe_mulet@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree 2.3 is not useful. However, 2.1 is not much either. An empty
statement is a poor approximation of the tree, and we have to come up with
similar strategies for cases where offending nodes are not entire
statements, think of: new A<B>() for instance, where only the type
reference could be malformed. We could then convert it to new A() and tag
it as malformed...

Note that 2.2 introduces some inconsistencies, but since these are tagged
as malformed, clients may prefer these anyway. In a general fashion
malformed nodes do not guarantee much. For instance, you may chose to
traverse them at your own risks.

So 2.1 is more consistent, and 2.2 is more informative.

Maybe clients should speak up a bit ?



                                                                           
             Jerome                                                        
             Lanneluc/France/I                                             
             BM@IBMFR                                                   To 
             Sent by:                  jdt-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx            
             jdt-core-dev-admi                                          cc 
             n@xxxxxxxxxxx                                                 
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [jdt-core-dev] 1.5 source using 
             06/15/2004 10:51          a apilevel JLS2                     
             AM                                                            
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
               jdt-core-dev                                                
                                                                           
                                                                           









I would say option 2.2 is no go: you cannot know anything about JLS3 in a
JLS2 world. Between 2.1 and 2.3, I prefer 2.1 as creating a MALFORMED node
is closer to the spec (see ASTParser#setKind()) and it allows clients to
still traverse the JLS2 nodes. With option 2.3 you end up with a not very
useful parent subtree.

Jerome




             Olivier Thomann
             <Olivier_Thomann@
             ca.ibm.com>                                                To
             Sent by:                  jdt-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
             jdt-core-dev-admi                                          cc
             n@xxxxxxxxxxx
                                                                   Subject
                                       [jdt-core-dev] 1.5 source using a
             06/14/2004 08:11          apilevel JLS2
             PM


             Please respond to
               jdt-core-dev







Hi,

Here is the start of a discussion in order to determine what should be the
resulting tree when a DOM/AST tree is created using a compilation unit that
contains 1.5 constructs and an api level JLS2. The 1.5 nodes don't exist in
JLS2. Using JLS3 apilevel, this is not an issue since all new 1.5
constructs are available.

See the attached document and please give us your feedback.



Thanks,

Olivier[attachment "documentfor59052.txt" deleted by Jerome
Lanneluc/France/IBM]

_______________________________________________
jdt-core-dev mailing list
jdt-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-core-dev