opencxx-users

[Opencxx-users] type of ptree nodes

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Hello,

I'm currently working on a new symbol lookup module using the parse tree and
the parser originally developed as part of OpenCxx. In this context, I'v
ran into a couple of contexts where I don't understand why the parse tree
is structured the way it is, and I'd like to know whether it could be changed.
For example, the name in a 'using' declaration / directive will simply be
a list of atoms, instead of a 'Name' (say), so it is impossible to extract
the encoded name from it.
However, as the Using type is currently not used at all (the Walker returns
it unchanged, and Environment doesn't know about it either) it seems as if
this could be easily changed, if there is no other reason for the current
layout.
A similar situation is with 'typedef' declarations. The type specifier,
too, is just a list of atoms, instead of something with an encoded name / type.
Why is that ?

Thanks for any help,
		Stefan

[Opencxx-users] Re: type of ptree nodes

[Shigeru C. <ch...@is...>]

Hi,

On 2005/ 1/27 , at 14:42, Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm currently working on a new symbol lookup module using the parse 
> tree and
> the parser originally developed as part of OpenCxx. In this context, 
> I'v
> ran into a couple of contexts where I don't understand why the parse 
> tree
> is structured the way it is, and I'd like to know whether it could be 
> changed.
> For example, the name in a 'using' declaration / directive will simply 
> be
> a list of atoms, instead of a 'Name' (say), so it is impossible to 
> extract
> the encoded name from it.
> However, as the Using type is currently not used at all (the Walker 
> returns
> it unchanged, and Environment doesn't know about it either) it seems 
> as if
> this could be easily changed, if there is no other reason for the 
> current
> layout.

The implementation of the using declaration is quite temporal.  It was 
added
to OpenC++ when the using declaration was introduced in the C++ 
standard.
It should be reimplemented as you wrote.

> A similar situation is with 'typedef' declarations. The type specifier,
> too, is just a list of atoms, instead of something with an encoded 
> name / type.
> Why is that ?

That is because I didn't need the encoded name/type when I was writing 
OpenC++.
If you need it, sure, you should extend the type specifier.  The 
program includes
a number of things that have not been implemented since I didn't have 
time to do
it.  I carefully prioritized what I should implement first to maximize 
my productivity!

Chiba

[Opencxx-users] Re: type of ptree nodes

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Hi Chiba,

thanks for the quick response !

Shigeru Chiba wrote:

> The implementation of the using declaration is quite temporal.  It was 
> added
> to OpenC++ when the using declaration was introduced in the C++ standard.
> It should be reimplemented as you wrote.

Thank you, that confirms my impression.

>> A similar situation is with 'typedef' declarations. The type specifier,
>> too, is just a list of atoms, instead of something with an encoded 
>> name / type.
>> Why is that ?
> 
> 
> That is because I didn't need the encoded name/type when I was writing 
> OpenC++.
> If you need it, sure, you should extend the type specifier.  The program 
> includes
> a number of things that have not been implemented since I didn't have 
> time to do
> it.  I carefully prioritized what I should implement first to maximize 
> my productivity!

As I'd like to work on this in the context of synopsis, I'd definitely
prefer to collaborate, i.e. at least try to design (and document) the
missing pieces of the parse tree together with OpenCxx developers.
Is there any interest into this from OpenCxx users / developers ? Is
OpenCxx still being developped at this point ?

Kind regards,
		Stefan

Re: [Opencxx-users] Re: type of ptree nodes

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

Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> As I'd like to work on this in the context of synopsis, I'd definitely
> prefer to collaborate, i.e. at least try to design (and document) the
> missing pieces of the parse tree together with OpenCxx developers.

You would like to collaborate but you oppose sharing the results with 
OpenC++ under its license. Such "collaboration" does not bring any value 
to OpenC++ project and I suggest that you don't distract people on 
OpenC++ list with it. I am under impression that I told you that already.

> Is there any interest into this from OpenCxx users / developers ? Is
> OpenCxx still being developped at this point ?

Yes, there are two developers working currently on better demos and 
Environment class (Vinzenz Feenstra and Chen Bilong).

BR
Grzegorz

Re: [Opencxx-users] Re: type of ptree nodes

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 
>> As I'd like to work on this in the context of synopsis, I'd definitely
>> prefer to collaborate, i.e. at least try to design (and document) the
>> missing pieces of the parse tree together with OpenCxx developers.
> 
> 
> You would like to collaborate but you oppose sharing the results with 
> OpenC++ under its license. Such "collaboration" does not bring any value 
> to OpenC++ project and I suggest that you don't distract people on 
> OpenC++ list with it. I am under impression that I told you that already.

Licenses cover code, not design nor ideas. I'm talking about sharing
insight and ideas. And, as I'v suggested before, I have absolutely no
problem sending in patches to OpenCxx under any Free License you choose
to use.
These patches would be OpenCxx-specific anyways, as synopsis' code base
has evolved quite a bit, so there is very little common code now.

My offer still stands.

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [Opencxx-users] Re: type of ptree nodes

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

Stefan Seefeld wrote:
 > Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:
 >
 >> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
 >>
 >>> As I'd like to work on this in the context of synopsis, I'd definitely
 >>> prefer to collaborate, i.e. at least try to design (and document) the
 >>> missing pieces of the parse tree together with OpenCxx developers.
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> You would like to collaborate but you oppose sharing the results with
 >> OpenC++ under its license. Such "collaboration" does not bring any
 >> value to OpenC++ project and I suggest that you don't distract people
 >> on OpenC++ list with it. I am under impression that I told you that
 >> already.
 >
 > Licenses cover code, not design nor ideas. I'm talking about sharing
 > insight and ideas. And, as I'v suggested before, I have absolutely no
 > problem sending in patches to OpenCxx under any Free License you choose
 > to use.

Does it mean that you agree that your changes to OpenC++ (currently 
published as a part of Synopsis under LGPL) are merged into OpenC++ 
under OpenC++ license?

BR
Grzegorz

Re: [Opencxx-users] Re: type of ptree nodes

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:

>  > Licenses cover code, not design nor ideas. I'm talking about sharing
>  > insight and ideas. And, as I'v suggested before, I have absolutely no
>  > problem sending in patches to OpenCxx under any Free License you choose
>  > to use.
> 
> Does it mean that you agree that your changes to OpenC++ (currently 
> published as a part of Synopsis under LGPL) are merged into OpenC++ 
> under OpenC++ license?

I'm talking about patches which I'd happily distribute under any free license
you feel comfortable with.
I think that if you would look at the Synopsis code you would agree that there
isn't any set of patches I could sensibly produce against the current OpenC++
code base.
So the question you are really asking (again) is whether I would relicense
Synopsis code under an OpenC++ license. The answer to that question is still no.
(For reasons please use the OpenC++ ML archive.)

Regards,
		Stefan