Re: [Ctool-develop] using ctool as a library

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Shaun Flisakowski wrote:
> Stefan,
> 
> Rather than send a huge patch like this you could just become a ctool 
> developer so you can use cvs also; for a large change it could go in on 
> a branch first to be looked over by concerned parties. I'll just need 
> your sourceforge username to add you.

I'm known as 'stefan' there.

> I like the sound of your PrintTraversal, but I disagree with this not 
> being in the library itself. This is a very common need: using the 
> generated AST to swap arguments to a particular function, etc then 
> reprinting the source.  Having it in the library brings the size of a 
> simple program like this down to a page or two of code.

sure. I just wanted to make the point that the printing functionality
could be factored out of the individual nodes. I agree that it is a
commonly used tool, and in fact the PrintTraversal could be much refined
by means of strategies to become flexible as to what and how to print.

> Also, the bison change is going to need to be an option in the makefile; 
> my version of bison is apparently older, as its doing the dumb 
> 'gram.cpp.h' thing.  Autoconf sounds good to me also.

Good. Then we could test for the installed bison version and do the
right thing.

> Changing the library name to 'libctool.*' makes sense to me for both the 
> shared and static versions.
> 
> I'm not going to merge these changes now, I'll wait till I hear from you 
> about becoming a developer.

ok, fine. I'll be on vacation starting today for two weeks, but I'm
eager to work on this tool. Please let me know whether you have anything 
such as a commit policy. Besides dsicussing possible changes
before applying them, do you want to review the actual patches ? Etc.
Just to avoid later frustrations...

Best regards,
		Stefan