Re: [Opencxx-users] Next tasks

[<se...@in...>]

On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 20:44, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Gilles J. Seguin wrote:
> 
> > What do we do with synopsis,
> > - must we try to merge,
> >   1) Stephan, do you have suggestions.
> 
> not at this point. I'm still (as you may see if you follow my mails ;-)
> learning my way through opencxx, cleaning up and refactoring the code
> in 'my branch'.

About 'my branch', I am puzzle.
Does this branch is in opencxx or synopsis.
If in opencxx, I was under the impression that modification in CVS
where sending email to ope...@li....
What is the name of the branch.  I may not be aware of a lot of
work you have been doing.
I am tracking through syn...@fr...

> We should, however, discuss to find out whether we can agree on common
> goals, and if so, on the means to get there. If that is done, we may
> think about whether it is worth to merge, and how.
> Let's do one step at a time.

One step that I have try to do is documenting the grammar.
My goal was to derive tests that verify that this grammar correspond
to what the program is doing.  And also validate that changed codes
do not produce unforeseen effects.

My suggestion will be to used grammar with the PCCTS style.
What I try to get from the PCCTS style grammar is,
the semantic|syntactic predicates.

Semantic predicate is a parsing decision, on choice of alternative rules
based, from information not available to a pure LL(k) parser.
For example, bool isTypeSpecifier() is the implementation of a
syntactic predicate.
a:= (A)* B
a:= (A)* C
is now
a:= ( (A)* B )? (A)* B
a:= (A)* C
more information from "Language Translation Using PCCTS and C++"
see  <http://www.antlr.org/book.pcctsbk.pdf> page 28

Can you qualify relevance of this grammar
(important, urgent, not useful, later)

> I believe the first step should be an assessment of the current
> functionality.

Agree.  Previous comment was about documenting internal.

> This involves a lot of reverse-engineering (for me at least,
> as my understanding of opencxx is still limitted),
> as well as the setup of lots of applets to demonstrates how opencxx
> is working (unit tests are the best means for that).
> I'v been doing this with synopsis over the last couple of weeks, and
> I hope I can help you do the same with opencxx, so we can compare.

It is a must on my list. It is important and urgent.
That is, duplicate the qmtest from synopsis,
Stephan is this what you are referring to, confirm.

> Does this make sense ?

A lot of sense.