Thread: [Ctags-devel] function return type
Brought to you by:
dhiebert
From: Massimo C. <ma...@em...> - 2008-11-28 19:44:24
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi guys, I know that probably you've heard millions of times this question, but I cannot find the answer anywhere: will ctags have a support for parsing the return type of a function (in particular for C/C++/Java)? It would be really appreciated to build performant completions engines etc. Probably for ctags 5.8? thanks and regards, Massimo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkkwSfwACgkQcfVTgMRILk26+wCeM+IXQFSn0n/pMobLcGLlygSM VD0AnRma/VtLqS1I1MaDTydRojnUMxR9 =qKkm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Elliott H. <en...@je...> - 2008-11-28 22:21:18
|
i'm not aware that anyone's working on it. --elliott On Fri, November 28, 2008 11:44, Massimo Cora' wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Hi guys, > > > I know that probably you've heard millions of times this question, but I > cannot find the answer anywhere: will ctags have a support for parsing the > return type of a function (in particular for C/C++/Java)? It would be > really appreciated to build performant completions engines etc. Probably > for ctags 5.8? > > thanks and regards, Massimo > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > > iEYEARECAAYFAkkwSfwACgkQcfVTgMRILk26+wCeM+IXQFSn0n/pMobLcGLlygSM > VD0AnRma/VtLqS1I1MaDTydRojnUMxR9 > =qKkm > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win > great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event > anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Ctags-devel mailing list > Cta...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ctags-devel > > -- Elliott Hughes, http://www.jessies.org/~enh/ |
From: Massimo C. <ma...@em...> - 2008-12-15 22:34:42
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Elliott, Elliott Hughes wrote: > > i'm not aware that anyone's working on it. > > ok. I would probably put on this task. How much work do you think is needed to have it implemented? thanks and regards, Massimo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAklG2JwACgkQcfVTgMRILk1JwQCcCyxnDdRViRy2UOml92zFcjqw Y9YAn1A4Nhy3rdE1BxFhtLbvaEHi9MHy =EdJ3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Elliott H. <en...@je...> - 2008-12-16 02:45:53
|
On Mon, December 15, 2008 14:22, Massimo Cora' wrote: > Elliott Hughes wrote: >>> i'm not aware that anyone's working on it. > > ok. I would probably put on this task. How much work do you think is > needed to have it implemented? this was for C-family languages? adding the extra data and outputting it should be easy enough. the tricky bit will be actually recognizing which part of the input was the return type, i think. how hard that is depends on the language in question, and how/if its parser already distinguishes return types. i can't think of anything really problematic off the top of my head, but you know what programming's like... there may be devils in the details ;-) -- Elliott Hughes, http://www.jessies.org/~enh/ |
From: Massimo C. <ma...@em...> - 2009-05-04 22:27:19
Attachments:
return_type.diff
foo.c
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, a little bit late but I finally found the time to check this. Elliott Hughes wrote: > On Mon, December 15, 2008 14:22, Massimo Cora' wrote: >> Elliott Hughes wrote: >>>> i'm not aware that anyone's working on it. >> ok. I would probably put on this task. How much work do you think is >> needed to have it implemented? > > this was for C-family languages? adding the extra data and outputting it yes it is for C-family. > should be easy enough. the tricky bit will be actually recognizing which > part of the input was the return type, i think. how hard that is depends > on the language in question, and how/if its parser already distinguishes > return types. > well, shortly, on c.c you were storing only 3 tokens. But the return type of a function was coming on the fourth. prev3 prev2 prev1 curr - ------- ------- ----- ------ rettype funcname (args) { increasing the number of tokens and printing out some info at the right point made me think that maybe adding the return type of a function is a doable thing. Probably I'm wrong, but am I missing something? Ok, the pointer like 'char*' were identified by 'char', but that would really be an improvement. I've attached a little patch against svn trunk to test this. It does not modify the tags nor add extra logic, it just prints the supposed return type. regards, Massimo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn/aNgACgkQcfVTgMRILk35EQCfbsr2g7v4m7wA5kLiQ/IHdY66 zJIAoILIhPy/hwIOtQnuNRFpQhxo86Of =tKTb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Massimo C. <ma...@em...> - 2009-06-19 23:06:07
Attachments:
ctags_return_type.diff
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I've a patch for return type of C/C++ languages. An easy addon can be done to support Java and the others in c.c The patch takes care of putting a new field (returntype) in the tags file. It can be activated passing the 'T' flag to the fields parameter (e.g --fields=afmiKlnsSTtz) It'd be great if you could test this and tell me your thoughts. thanks and regards, Massimo Massimo Cora' wrote: > Hi, > > a little bit late but I finally found the time to check this. > > > Elliott Hughes wrote: >> On Mon, December 15, 2008 14:22, Massimo Cora' wrote: >>> Elliott Hughes wrote: >>>>> i'm not aware that anyone's working on it. >>> ok. I would probably put on this task. How much work do you think is >>> needed to have it implemented? >> this was for C-family languages? adding the extra data and outputting it > > yes it is for C-family. > >> should be easy enough. the tricky bit will be actually recognizing which >> part of the input was the return type, i think. how hard that is depends >> on the language in question, and how/if its parser already distinguishes >> return types. > > > well, shortly, on c.c you were storing only 3 tokens. > But the return type of a function was coming on the fourth. > > prev3 prev2 prev1 curr > ------- ------- ----- ------ > rettype funcname (args) { > > > increasing the number of tokens and printing out some info at the right > point made me think that maybe adding the return type of a function is a > doable thing. > Probably I'm wrong, but am I missing something? > Ok, the pointer like 'char*' were identified by 'char', but that would > really be an improvement. > > I've attached a little patch against svn trunk to test this. It does not > modify the tags nor add extra logic, it just prints the supposed return > type. > > regards, > Massimo > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now & Save for Velocity, the Web Performance & Operations Conference from O'Reilly Media. Velocity features a full day of expert-led, hands-on workshops and two days of sessions from industry leaders in dedicated Performance & Operations tracks. Use code vel09scf and Save an extra 15% before 5/3. http://p.sf.net/sfu/velocityconf - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ctags-devel mailing list Cta...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ctags-devel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEUEARECAAYFAko8GcgACgkQcfVTgMRILk2CEwCXaMIWvAb7XIXCWezQbspmuSi5 BgCdE0pGLdBK/7jCpe6FEG+n5KPTeAA= =H8Z2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |