[Opencxx-users] Re: [opencxx] Let's break OpenC++ up

[James M. D. <mdu...@ya...>]

--- Grzegorz Jakacki <ja...@he...> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > 1. the preprocessor
> > 2. the lexer
> > 3. the yacc
> > 4. the trees (ast in gcc)
> > 5. the rtl (in gcc)
> > 6. the debug information(in gcc)
> >
> > All of these are just producing messages.
> > we need to have a callback filtering system so that the user can
> > register and subscribe to get the information needed. That will
> > predicate a identifier system that allows addressing of any part of
> the
> > system with an identifier.
> >
> > This query system could be just a set of callbacks, each callback
> would
> > be a differnet type of function.
> >
> > of course that could be made into a set of classes with methods you
> can
> > override. Maybe even a generic function that would allow you to get
> a
> > fully instanciated object of a given type.
> 
> In the framework I have in mind there is no callback registration.

> The user of the framework supplies an object whose type is a class
> with
> overloaded operator(). Overloads are distinguished based on the
> kind of nodes in the tree. Kinds of nodes can be just nodes types,
> but not necessarily --- one kind can be implemented by many types
> and vice versa. The framework takes tree node implementation, decides
> what kind is it and calls the appropriate overload on user-supplied
> object.

So that is a form of a callback. By passing an object that supports a
given interface where virtual methods are called, you have a call back
scenario.
> 
> > The treecc is good for defining all the types of nodes. the
> question of
> > limiting the view and scope of data is a separate one.
> 
> I do not think that there is the universal set of types of nodes,
> perhaps
> cons/nil is the only common denominator. It is very much domain
> dependent
> and the framewok should not fix it. Take a look at SLT, which defines
> just
> requirements on types (concepts) of containers. STL algorithms can be
> used
> with any types, not only the ones defined in STL (standard
> containers'
> iterators). For an example: imagine somebody prepared universal set
> of nodes
> for C++ before Chiba invented OpenC++. Now comes Chiba and wants to
> have
> some nodes which represent arbitrary chunks of text inserted into C++
> parse
> tree. 

Then he should create new nodes derived from the right part. (or supply
template classes as you point out)

>It is very unlikely, that the person who focused on inventing
> "universal" C++ parse tree predicted Chiba's requirement. We are in
> similar
> situation.

I am not saying we should handle all the nodes, but the ones we know
about.

mike

=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com