Re: [orbitcpp-list] Task list

[Phil d. <ph...@us...>]

Andreas Kloeckner wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
>
> > 1) Get the skeletons working with the string example
> 
> i'll be looking into this right now. (we had a probability theory exam
> yesterday, and today i'm taking a break from learning) i hope i can
> commit as frequently as possible.
> 

Cool - I was going to work on this tonight, but if you've already
started I'll find something else to do (like maybe go to the pub :-)

> > 2) Port the other non-MI tests over from ORBit-C++ and make sure they
> > work:
> > boolean, consts, corba_unknown, enum, exception, integers, objref,
> > struct, typedef, sequence
> 
> boolean: should be ok
> consts: no support yet
> corba_unknown: huh? what should this do?

The server throws an exception which the idl skels don't know about.

> enum: no support yet
> exception: should be ok
> integers: should be ok
> objref: should be ok
> typedef: should be ok
> sequence: no support yet
> 

Okay, I'll start moving the 'should be ok' tests ready for when the
skels work.

> > 3) Put in support for multiple inheritance (with the inline casts and
> > downcall functions), and port the 'diamond' test.
> 
> perhaps i'll do some preliminary work on this today.
> 
> > 5) Fix orbit-idl so that it can take its shared library backends from
> > any directory. This will enable the tests to be run without installing
> > the compiler first (I really want this, because otherwise I can't use
> > 'make distcheck' to catch build/install bugs before I do a release)
> 
> uh, let's first produce something worth releasing :)
> 

:-)
Although, I think a release may be in order after we get basic stuff
going again, just to retain interest, and maybe encourage people to look
at the code.

> > Andy, do you think you could cobble together some notes on the compiler
> > structure? - just a few lines on things like IDLScope and the supporting
> > functions. It took me a good 20 minutes to figure out how to remove the
> > leading :: from fully qualified CPP names.
> 
> i'll see what i can do. though i hate documenting. phil, can you think
> of a way to make the thing more self-explanatory? (and thus lessen the
> need for docs? ;-)

It was actually pretty self explanatory as code goes. It's more general
concepts that need documentation (like 'what is IDLScope? Conceptual
examples of an IDLScope are...'). I may write a couple of notes along
these lines, but I agree that self-explanatory code is better than
docuementation.

Cheers,

Phil.