>>IMO Semantic 2.0 is not so incompatible with 1.4, at least from a non
>>developer point of view. I often switch between the two versions
>>(just renaming directories) without changing anything in my Emacs
>>configuration, and not noticed particular problems but some missing
>>new features when I go back to 1.4 ;-)
> That's right, but if someone has a bovine parser, it may be
> incompatible. Didn't you change all the .bnf files in some small
I don't think so. What I did is a port of c.bnf to the new grammar
framework, in BY format. I didn't check the new semantic-c.el in yet,
so the BNF file is still valid. I just sent you the c.by and its
corresponding semantic-c.el files so you can play with them, before
switching to the BY form ;-)
>>I would like to release a first alpha version of Semantic 2.0 (which
>>seems stable enough now), so courageous people could play with it and
>>give us some feedback.
>>I am going to try to summarize what's new in that major version. Of
>>course your help will be welcome ;-)
> [ ... ]
> It is in /home/groups/c/ce/cedet. Owner is me on most files, but
> group is "cedet". I switched those files to group writable. If you
> run the "groups" command on gate.sf.net, and it lists "cedet", you
> should be ok. I'm in lots of groups besides my own, so my guess is
> that you will be all set.
> I usually hack the html on my computer, check it into CVS, then just
> log in and do a "cvs udpate" in the htdocs directory.
Thanks for the info!
> I think a semantic beta is a great idea. The only bit that annoys me
> still is that unterminated lists will highlight the whole file when
> show unmatched syntax is on. It then doesn't know how to put it back
> when you fix the file. I looked into it briefly but hadn't seen
> anything obvious.
IMO it is not necessary to have that bug fixed to release a first
beta (or alpha=3F) of Semantic 2.0. We could just add a "Known bugs"
topic to the release notes.