Re: [Cpptool-develop] I'm still there - working through all these sources

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andre Baresel" <and...@gm...>
To: <Cpp...@li...>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 11:10 PM
Subject: [Cpptool-develop] I'm still there - working through all these
sources


> I started getting into the sources, but I'm still not usefull for the
> project :-(
>
> i think it will take some time to get all the ideas. However I started
> to play arround with
> this Mutator concept and tried to implement this ToDo Item  "Adding a
> variable declaration in
> if/while statement" ... not to make this for the public, but this is
> something I can check against
> later on, when you Baptiste have checked your sources in.

With luck, I will be able to commit this evening...

> I got something working, but well, I'm not sure if this is ok and
> there's a question:
> The introduction of a new nodetype for the conditions makes some of the
> tests failing, so how is this situation
> handled ? Is it ok than to change the tests, too - since the assertion
> only reports the new ast-node-type not
> beeing expected.

Some unit tests of the If parser should failed because they expect a
different node type for the condition. Changing the node type in the check
methods should fix the If parser tests. You also get a few tests failing in
ScopeGeneratorTest because of the new declaration that was introduced.

> Another thing is the MaxLODMutator ... In the beginning I stumbled
> accross two things:
> - the methods "mutate" and "doMutate" sound like the same action and
> take the same parameters but they
>   do completely different things ... I would suggest some better naming
> here ... maybe doMutate is just "doMultipleMutate" ?
> - this MaxLODMutatorVisitor, what about that class, is this really needed
?
>       As I understand this class is only used to be instanciated in each
> recursion of the mutation operation.
>       Is there anything I can't see ? The use of this class confused me
> a little bit. With this class the recursion comes
>       Invisible for a person reading the source.... Just my opinion.

The current mutator stuff are a 'hack' to get the stuff working. It is not
very clear to me what it should be exactly. I expect things to become
clearer when we'll have a more complete parser and some form a AST rewriting
(the current mutation scheme prevent the use of polymorphism in ASTNode).

Sven already covered the other points I believe.

> I'll next go into these Scope things -

Don't bother with the current implementation. It's have been completly
rewritten (IdentifierResolver stuffs). It's a lot more simple and easier to
extend, to resolve unqualified identifier as attribute or member function
for example. I'm in the process of adding test for this.

Baptiste.

> and in parallel i'm still collecting the useful infos from the forum and
> the mailing list.
>
> See you later,
> Andre