cpptool-develop

[Cpptool-develop] apologies

[Sven R. <rei...@ma...>]

Hi Guys,

my sincere apologies for keeping silent for a month. The fact is, I was 
really busy with high priority projects here. I will see what has been 
done over this period, and then get back into the game. Do you have 
anything OS-independent on the ToDo list?

Later,
Sven.

-- 
Sven Reichard
Dept. of Math. Sci.
University of Delaware
rei...@ma...

Re: [Cpptool-develop] apologies

[Andre B. <and...@gm...>]

Sven Reichard wrote:

>Hi Guys,
>
>my sincere apologies for keeping silent for a month. The fact is, I was 
>really busy with high priority projects here. I will see what has been 
>done over this period, and then get back into the game. Do you have 
>anything OS-independent on the ToDo list?
>
>Later,
>Sven.
>
>  
>
Hi there,

it was the same for me. I'm currently trying to write an Eclipse-Plugin 
for the refactoring methods.
Btw) The C++ Plugin for eclipse plannes some refactoring code, but they 
are really in the
early stage of viewing/editing c++ code and there're many tasks on their 
'to do' lists. We will
see how much manpower will be spend on this plugin (IBM and Rational are 
part of this project).
It is opensource, but Java based. What I try to do, is to write a Plugin 
for eclipse to act as bridge
to our refactoring code. However I'm not familar with the 
PlugIn-Interfaces of Eclipse and I've
no experiences with the Java Native Interface (planned as integration 
point).
I had another interessting discussion with Baptiste on the 
FullParser-Implementation. Some results
are written in the Wiki. Maybe that's something to continue with. 
Another point is the CodeGenerator
stuff created by Baptiste. It's not yet used by the refactoring methods 
- maybe continue here ?
Last but not least some "bugs" are still open.

Btw) Sven - what do you think about using the Bug/Featuretracking 
capabilities of SourceForge ?
I believe the Feature/Bug list provided by SF gives a better overview 
than the WiKi todo list.
Isn't it ?-- maybe the wiki ToDo's could be used as global future 
oriented and the SF- Bug/Feature List
as list of small tasks for the near future.

Well, it's time to do something,
André

Re: [Cpptool-develop] apologies

[Sven R. <rei...@ma...>]

Andre,

I know that the SplitTemp code is buggy, it was just a quick prototype. I 
still need to figure out what exactly I want it to do... There are a 
couple of issues related to assignments in subscopes; they can be split if 
the variable isn't used after the subscope (because of a return statement, 
e.g.), but that's a bit hard to detect. I will try to move the code to the 
safe side, i.e., just perform the refactoring if we know it is legal.

Since the CodeGenerator code isn't used yet, I don't really understand it. 
I'll try to work on it.

I'll read what you wrote about the FullParser stuff. I would increase its 
priority to medium, since it is necessary for a Linux interface (in its 
current design).

More later,
Sven.

-- 
Sven Reichard
Dept. of Math. Sci.
University of Delaware
rei...@ma...

Re: [Cpptool-develop] apologies

[Andre B. <and...@gm...>]

Sven Reichard wrote:

>Since the CodeGenerator code isn't used yet, I don't really understand it. 
>I'll try to work on it.
>
I think I understood the main idea by anlysing the tests written by 
Baptiste.
In the tests the code generator is used in the following way:

-  Parse a code to an AST (lazy parsing as used in the Refactoring code)
-  Transform the AST to Code-Elements like if-statement/for-statement 
etc. (for each programming
       element there is a class
- Code-Elements are used to rewrite the code in a textual form 
(formatting stuff).

For me it seems to be a transformation between the AST-representation 
and a new CodeGenerator
representation. This codegeneration representation can be used for 
formatting.

>
>I'll read what you wrote about the FullParser stuff. I would increase its 
>priority to medium, since it is necessary for a Linux interface (in its 
>current design).
>
I also think the priority of this task should be increased. However, we 
should also prepare some
release before adding functionality (e.g. an installable plugin for 
visual studio). To show the world,
that there's something comming up.

Btw) I checked again the eclispe  C++ plugin especially for the 
refactoring functionality. The only thing
I found, was some dicussion on using an open source c++ parser... well 
that's not really far, I will
check periodicly what's going on over there.

until later
-- André

Re: [Cpptool-develop] CodeModel (was: apologies)

[Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andre Baresel" <and...@gm...>
To: "Sven Reichard" <rei...@ma...>; "CppTool Mailing List"
<Cpp...@li...>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Cpptool-develop] apologies


> Sven Reichard wrote:
>
> >Since the CodeGenerator code isn't used yet, I don't really understand
it.
> >I'll try to work on it.
> >
> I think I understood the main idea by anlysing the tests written by
> Baptiste.
> In the tests the code generator is used in the following way:
>
> -  Parse a code to an AST (lazy parsing as used in the Refactoring code)
> -  Transform the AST to Code-Elements like if-statement/for-statement
> etc. (for each programming
>        element there is a class
> - Code-Elements are used to rewrite the code in a textual form
> (formatting stuff).
>
> For me it seems to be a transformation between the AST-representation
> and a new CodeGenerator
> representation. This codegeneration representation can be used for
> formatting.

Yes, that's it. See the very basic example in
CodeWriterTest::testRewriteStatement().

It will be use for formatting, but also for refactoring. On difficult issue
when doing some refactoring like IntroduceExplainingVariable and
ReduceTemporaryScope is that you need to introduce a new statement next to
another existing one. Doing so may require adding a compound statement,
which is very 'context dependent' (is it within a switch/case,a  for, a
if/then/else...)

Baptiste.

> [...]

Re: [Cpptool-develop] apologies

[Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andre Baresel" <and...@gm...>
To: "Sven Reichard" <rei...@ma...>; "CppTool Mailing List"
<Cpp...@li...>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Cpptool-develop] apologies


>[...]
> >
> >I'll read what you wrote about the FullParser stuff. I would increase its
> >priority to medium, since it is necessary for a Linux interface (in its
> >current design).

Could you explain why ? From what I understood, it just works like a
separate application to which you pass the file and the selection.

> I also think the priority of this task should be increased. However, we
> should also prepare some
> release before adding functionality (e.g. an installable plugin for
> visual studio). To show the world,
> that there's something comming up.

Yes, that would be nice.

Baptiste.

> [...]
> until later
> -- André

Re: [Cpptool-develop] apologies

[Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Reichard" <rei...@ma...>
To: "CppTool Mailing List" <Cpp...@li...>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 5:35 PM
Subject: [Cpptool-develop] apologies


> Hi Guys,
>
> my sincere apologies for keeping silent for a month. The fact is, I was
> really busy with high priority projects here. I will see what has been
> done over this period, and then get back into the game. Do you have
> anything OS-independent on the ToDo list?


Well, I've been fairly busy myself for the last 3 weeks. Not much has happen
since then.

Baptiste.

>
> Later,
> Sven.
>
> --
> Sven Reichard
> Dept. of Math. Sci.
> University of Delaware
> rei...@ma...