Eric M. Ludlam wrote:
> There is certainly a discrepency between the doc and the
> functionality. As you are the first to mention this eggregeous error,
> perhaps these functions should just be deleted in favor of direct
> calls to inversion..
Yes, sounds senseful - so i have replaced semantic-required-version
in my working-copy of semantic-regtest.el by a call to inversion...
BTW: I took a look into PRERELEASE_CHECKLIST and found "use =
IMHO a good pointer... because i wrote this library more than 1 year ago =
i it would maybe a good idea to test this stuff with current cedet ;-)
First result: Fixing the inversion-stuff.
But in general it works pretty smart (some selfpraising ;-)....
So i would create for all test-files in semantic/test a reference-output =
active cedet1.0beta3 and store them also in semantic/test... Then i will
run a regression test with semantic-regtest-run-test for all test-files =
active current CVS-cedet and check where are the differences... the =
files of these tests i will also store in semantic/test. This files can
are openend in a smart major-mode semantic-regtest-mode when
semantic-regtest.el is loaded. So if there are parsing-differences =
current CVS and cedet1.0beta3 we can decide if they are ok and if yes, =
the regtest-outputs with CVS-cedet the new referencial-outputs so we get =
future releases a good regression-test-base.
BTW: In the past semantic-regtest.el was also mean to allow =
between semantic-1.4-parsers and the semantic-2.X-parsers - therefore=20
semantic-regtest itself is written with the semantic-1.4-API so it can =
under semantic-1.4 too....
Hmm, i currently mull over if it would make sense to port this lib to =
semantic-2.0-API but then this lib can not run under semantic-1.4 and =
test-output for semantic-1.4-parsers... But do we need this really? What =