Re: [xtext-dev] scope delimiter keword's (SDKS)

[Jan Köhnlein <jan.koehnlein@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

the scoping delimiters could be interesting in the context of partial  
parsing, too.

In PP, we extend the dirty region by ascending the parse tree until we  
have a section that can be entered by a parser rule without lookahead.  
Scope rules could be an natural choice for such an entry rule, as I  
expect them to explicitely consume all lookahead tokens. We could e.g.  
mark certain parser rules as scope rules with defined start and end  
keywords.

Just my 2 cent.
Jan


Am 29.07.2008 um 07:48 schrieb Sven Efftinge:

> Hi Michael,
>
> sorry for the late response. I think we should discuss things in  
> english so that we do not exclude any interested spectators.
> Your question was whether we should come up with something like  
> 'scope delimiter keywords' (like e.g, '{' and '}'), which are  
> explicitly declared in the grammar.
>
> I see the following things where this information could be reused:
>
> - provide better default scoping (we don't yet provide default  
> scopes at all)
> - provide better default fragments (i.e. qualified names)
> - provide auto edit facilities (automatic inserting the closing  
> bracket) -- this is what you were thinking of, right?
> - folding could use this information
> - serialization / formatting could use the information for indentation
> Any additions?
>
> On the downside, I think we would heavily overload the term 'scope'  
> when using the information for so many different things (but, hey,  
> this is abstraction ;-)). More important, the grammar language grows  
> and grows, and I get the feeling that we should try to separate  
> things.
>
> Why not defining another language service (e.g. 'IScopingService')  
> which can be implemented as fits, and the default implementation  
> uses '{' '}' as scope delimiters?
>
> I'ld propose something like this:
>
> IScopingService {
>    boolean isScopeStart(AbstractElement ele);
>    boolean isScopeEnd(AbstractElement ele);
> }
>
> What do you think?
>
> Sven
>
>
> On Jul 23, 2008, at 10:43 PM, michael clay wrote:
>
> > hallo,
> >
> > keine ahnung ob das die richtige bezeichnung ist aber ich nenne sie
> > einfach mal 'scope delimiter kewords' (SDKS)  z.B.  {} () [] usw.
> >
> > meine frage: koennen wir fuer diese SDKS einen optionalen hint in die
> > xtext grammatik mitaufnehmen damit ich diese im contentassist
> > erkenne und automatisch einfuege sodass sie der anwender nicht mehr
> > extra eingeben/auswaehlen muss?
> >
> > danke
> > michael
> > _______________________________________________
> > xtext-dev mailing list
> > xtext-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/xtext-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> xtext-dev mailing list
> xtext-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/xtext-dev

--
Dr. Jan Köhnlein
Senior Software Architekt

Telefon: +49 (0) 431 / 5606-337
Mobile: +49 (0) 163 / 3979 776
Telefax: +49 (0) 431 / 5606-339

http://www.itemis.de
jan.koehnlein@xxxxxxxxx

itemis AG
Schauenburgerstr. 116
24118 Kiel

Rechtlicher Hinweis:

Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621

Vorstand: Wolfgang Neuhaus, Jens Wagener, Dr. Georg Pietrek

Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhart Igel (Vors.) Stephan Grollmann,  
Michael Neuhaus