11 Feb
2011
11 Feb
'11
10:16 a.m.
Hi Nicolas,
I would suggest to first focus on getting VerveineJ working fully before embarking into
another large project like the VerveineC. The problem with parsers is that if they are not
working in edge cases they end up being unused.
So, let's start a focused work on this to get it tested and scalable.
Cheers,
Doru
On 11 Feb 2011, at 10:04, Nicolas Anquetil wrote:
VerveineC has been on my todo list for a long time. It
could work for C, but I still have problem with the C++ parser of CDT (I plan to use CDT
for VerveineC just as we are using JDT for VerveineJ). I almost started it yesterday, but
then I was abruptly remembered that there was a day long meeting at INRIA.
Andre could work on enums for VerveineJ, it should not take more than half a day.
ParameterizableClass and ParameterizedType are already there I believe.
I am not sure what work is involved in AnnotationTypeProperty and
AnnotationInstanceProperty?
As for the two open questions, we just need some TIME to think about it. The very thing
we all have in vast amount, ready to be spent at will :-)
nicolas
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
The logic
is extremely simple: They are investing the development
effort. I am simply answering questions and reviewing the results.
Moreover, their parser also supports C/C++ now, so that alone is a
huge plus.
indeed.
I did the same with VerveineJ and I would still
like to work with
someone on this topic.
Cheers,
Doru
On 10 Feb 2011, at 20:55, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Doru
I do not really understand why you do not help fixing verveineJ
since it is MIT/BSD and
that for us inFusion is still closed code.
What is the logic behind duplicating effort?
Stef
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you might have noticed, we have new additions to Famix-Java:
> - ParameterizableClass and ParameterizedType (to model generics
> and templates - thanks Andre :))
> - Enum and EnumValue (to model Java Enums)
> - AnnotationTypeProperty and AnnotationInstanceProperty (to have
> detailed information about AnnotationType and AnnotationInstance)
>
> I am currently working with the inFusion guys to get the exporter
> working with these new additions. It would be great to have also
> VerveineJ up to date on this.
>
> There are still open issues, and it would also be great to get
> help on them:
> - How to model the parameters of a ParameterizableClass as a Type
> that can be used as declaredType. We should add some sort of a
> local scope to a type. See:
> http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=495
> - I would like to have an explicit FAMIXInterface, but it is
> slightly more difficult now that we have ParameterizableClass.
> See:
> http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=526
>
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Be rather willing to give than demanding to get."
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it
cannot be done."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev