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

[Shaun F. <fli...@so...>]

On Friday, August 1, 2003, at 10:39  AM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> 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.

Great - you are now a developer.

>> 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.

As I mentioned in my previous email, we should try to maintain the old 
API also (redirecting it to the PrintTraversal in this case), at least 
for a few releases.

>> 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...

I don't yet.  There was only one other ctool developer at the moment, 
and we were just sort of working it out. He's actually working on some 
larger open-source tool which is using ctool as a component.

I want to hear about larger changes, but I can see the diffs in CVS if 
I'm just given a list of files.  I don't need to be informed of every 
bug fix.

Thanks,
Shaun