[Lxr-dev] [ lxr-Feature Requests-2774495 ] Deprecate or Remove Unused LXR::Lang Modules

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Feature Requests item #2774495, was opened at 2009-04-19 16:55
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by mbox
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=390120&aid=2774495&group_id=27350

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: General
Group: None
Status: Open
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: AdrianIssott (adrianissott)
Assigned to: AdrianIssott (adrianissott)
Summary: Deprecate or Remove Unused LXR::Lang Modules

Initial Comment:
The following LXR::Lang modules don't actually get used by default:
* LXR::Lang::Perl (last modified in CVS in Mar 2001)
* LXR::Lang::Python (last modified in CVS in Sept 1999)

Instead LXR::Lang::Generic is used for Perl and Python. Having the above modules present is just confusing and hence should be deprecated or removed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Malcolm Box (mbox)
Date: 2009-04-21 15:40

Message:
I say nuke the Lang modules.

Don't know whether the DB module works or not - I'll give it a test to
see.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Date: 2009-04-20 20:30

Message:
One other thought - is anyone actually using LXR::Index::DB? I'm not sure
it'll run since it too hasn't been changed in ages.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Date: 2009-04-20 20:29

Message:
So would you like me to delete them rather than some kind of deprecation? I
must admit I'd prefer to get rid of them entirely since I'd be surprised if
anyone is actually using them.

As for alternatives to using LXR::Lang::Generic, Cobol and Java would be
the only remaining two that are different and both derive from
LXR::Lang::Generic. This would then leave the question of why have both
LXR::Lang and LXR::Lang::Generic but that's a bigger question ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Malcolm Box (mbox)
Date: 2009-04-20 10:18

Message:
Agreed, they should go.  It is useful to have at least one language module
as an example of how to create one - I think the Cobol one is still used,
so that would serve.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=390120&aid=2774495&group_id=27350