Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Jonathan I. Maletic, Ph.D." <jmaletic(a)cs.kent.edu>
> Date: May 13, 2008 7:41:23 PM CEDT
> To: Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>, Michael Collard <collard(a)cs.kent.edu
> >
> Subject: Re: A qustion about srcML
>
>
>>
>> Thanks. I was thinking that I could bridge it to our tools :)
>> May be this question will help me to understand:
>> when you have an AST, are the symbols resolved ? I guess not, I
>> imagine that srcML gives you the parsed text as input.
>> which is already something in C++ :)
>
> Stef,
>
> We have a separate tool to do name resolution, symbol table etc.
> Name resolution is particularly difficult and this tool is not as
> robust as the translator. We've not been handing the name
> resolution stuff out until will do some more testing. As you said C
> ++ is hell. We plan to get these other tools cleaned up over the
> summer.
>
> So just running the translator you get un-resolved names.
>
> Jonathan
>
>>
>>> Stef,
>>>
>>> We markup up down to the identifier level. But expressions are
>>> not marked completely. That is identifiers in expressions are
>>> marked but the entire AST for the expression is not done. So all
>>> parameter lists are marked etc.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, everything else is marked up including preprocessor
>>> statements, templates, and comments. Nothing is removed from the
>>> original code code. You can get the exact original code back
>>> including whitespace.
>>>
>>> Does this help?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's fast and robust. A number of folks are using it including
>>> some people in industry. So it actually works as opposed to just
>>> a prototype.
>>
>> I like that.
>> C++ is so much a hell. A friend of mine tried CDT and the code is
>> really strange (you have to walk several structure to go from a
>> method to its class).
>>
>> Stef
>