Re: [orbitcpp-list] Task list
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
philipd
|
From: Phil d. <ph...@us...> - 2000-03-08 16:34:24
|
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. |