Re: [Pasdoc-main] PasDoc 0.12.0 release next week, and decisions for PasDoc2 branch

[Hans-Peter D. <DrD...@ao...>]

Michalis Kamburelis schrieb:

> My objections were about bugs in your PasDoc2 branch code, bugs that
> didn't exist in original trunk code.

Let me try to separate the modifications:

> I honestly don't know what
> "specifications" or "actions" on my part you were waiting for. These
> bugs didn't exist in the trunk code in the first place.

Some hacks have been removed, that had been introduced in trunk for 
parsing new Delphi syntax, but without according handling of the 
syntactic constructs. The consequential errors indicate the incapability 
of handling such post-D7 constructs, due to limitations in the PasDoc 
tree model. Also a specification of the new Delphi grammar is required, 
not available to me at that time.

> Some of them are
> range check errors when parsing valid code,

I didn't come across such errors, and wasn't informed about such situations.

> and I can't imagine how any
> "specification" or (more) architectural changes of pasdoc would help
> here.

The PasDoc model does not include nested declarations, according to new 
Delph syntax; e.g. type, var and const declarations inside class 
declarations.

> Bugs need to be fixed, and when you introduce them --- it's
> usually your job to fix them.

When a program says "done" without doing anything, then I consider this 
fake behaviour a bug.


> I understand that you didn't have time to do it. It's Ok. Neither did I.
> Just don't blame it on waiting for some action on my part, something
> that I had no idea about.

Sorry for the lack of communication. You should have understood the 
implications of the new Delphi syntax, and their impact on the PasDoc 
tree model, in both parser and generator code. The inappropriate tree 
structure also prevents handling of local (nested) procedures, that's 
why I could not extend the parser to also process implementation sections.



>> We differ in many ideas, how things should be made working. I've 
>> implemented and tested my approach(es) for feasability, but only on the 
>> small scale, i.e. the implementation may not work yet in certain cases. 
> 
> Your implementation doesn't work.

It works with Delphi syntax up to D7.

> And instead of fixing the bugs, you
> only respond with emails talking how "the model is inapplicable" or
> such.

Right. Please provide a tree model that can deal with nested 
declarations, or let somebody else provide it.


> You seem to demand from me some big decision, where I don't see a need
> to make one.

Sorry that I could not make it more clear to you :-(

 > The "plan" is to keep PasDoc working, parsing Pascal
> sources with latest Delphi and FPC features, and make output useful.
> Whoa, that was deep.

Then add wings to PasDoc first, before you ask anybody else to make it fly.

> Everything may be changed (alternative parser, PasDoc_Items tree, etc.)
> when it's needed. Just do it as gradually as possible, and don't
> introduce bugs (or at least fix them afterwards).

It was not my task to modify the tree model.

>> Does there exist any documentation of the (current/intended) tree 
>> structure, in general and in implementation details? I definitely 
>> deserve some concrete material, that could convince me to resume working 
>> on PasDoc.
>>
> 
> The autodoc http://pasdoc.sipsolutions.net/PasDocAutoDoc is our
> documentation.

You are kidding. That "documentation" says nothing about the existing 
tree structure, nor about the handling of nested declarations, nor about 
the language syntax that is or should be implemented.

DoDi