Re: [Opencxx-users] Next tasks

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...>]

Gilles J. Seguin wrote:
> 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.

Let's agree on a common repo ASAP.

Stefan, what are the benefits of Fresco? Can OpenC++ get space there?
Do we need to move repo there, wouldn't you move your branch of OpenC++ 
to SF?

BR
Grzegorz


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Opencxx-users mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opencxx-users