Re: [Cpptool-develop] C++ parser progress...

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

Port finished and error recovery added. Uploaded at the same place.

I'll try to enhance the template support before moving back to the =
nodetracker.

Baptiste.
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Baptiste Lepilleur=20
  To: CppTool Mailing List=20
  Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 11:13 AM
  Subject: Re: [Cpptool-develop] C++ parser progress...


  Well, I've ported the expression parsing. After a rough start (some =
bug that went unoticed before in the grammar builder), I'm now =
progressing quickly (about 25% of the port is done).

  The most recent version can be found in:
  http://gaiacrtn.free.fr/backup/
  just peek the most recent version of cppparser.

  Interesting stuff to look at are in examples/parser.
  cpp_grammar.txt: the grammar
  cppparsertest.cpp: the unit test for the grammar
  nodetracker.cpp/nodetrackertest.cpp: proof of concept for ast =
modification that automatically update the source
  parser.h/parsercontext.h: parsing framework
  commandstream.cpp/commandstreamtest.cpp: converts the parser =
production into an ast.

  Baptiste.
    ----- Original Message -----=20
    From: Baptiste Lepilleur=20
    To: CppTool Mailing List=20
    Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 11:13 PM
    Subject: [Cpptool-develop] C++ parser progress...


        Some news about the C++ parser I'm working on...

        I've ported the core parser framework to C++. I've also decided =
to abstract the grammar away in a text file instead of executable code. =
This greatly improve grammar readability and avoid some mistakes that =
can easily be made when writing grammar in C++ (or python for the =
matter). This will also make the grammar much less sensible to change of =
the actual implementation of the parser (which I can see that evolving a =
lot).

        I'll tackle the actual port the C++ grammar written in python to =
C++ soon. I'm still undecided on weither I should also abstract the unit =
test into text file or having them in code...

        I have implemented a proof of concept of 'update the AST and get =
the modified source'. It handles insertion and removal of node (which =
can be composite node). It currently assumes the a depth first traversal =
of the ast tree will process the token node is the 'source' order. =
Giving a quick look at the python unit test, I didn't see this as being =
a false assertion (It can be worked around if need be, but it would =
complicate things a lot).

        If a preprocessor was postprocessing the lexer tokens, it could =
tag macros parameter occurrence as special 'token'. That way, when =
renaming that token we could detect that it is an actual macro parameter =
occurrence and renaming should be done at the macro call. This would =
allow dealing with a lot of macros occurence (for example renaming a =
method present in a CPPUNIT_TEST macro).
       =20
        A snapshot of the sources is available at:

    http://gaiacrtn.free.fr/backup/CppParser-20040209-22h30.rar

        It includes VC++ 2003 projects, cppunit 2, boost and precompiled =
regex librairies for VC++ 2003.

        Baptiste.