28 Apr
2010
28 Apr
'10
2:44 p.m.
As Simon said, the type resolution in C is easy. In C++ it is another
beast.
Alexandre
On 28 Apr 2010, at 04:47, Simon Denier wrote:
On 28 avr. 2010, at 10:36, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
the problem is that meta model is different so
you would have to
map everything.
Besides, from what I have seen, the generated xml is sometimes not
regular: i.e. similar things in the code does not have the same xml
representation. This makes it cumbersome as it is not documented, so
you have to decode the grammar from the xml and adapt to such
irregularities.
In the end, you still have to maintain a xml parser for each
language and you still dont have control about what is extracted.
And you have to do the type resolution :)
Stef
On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Laval Jannik wrote:
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi all,
I am looking at srcML, and I see that it make XML files from Java
and C++ source code.
Since we use it for C source code, it should be possible to make
it works with C++ and java.
This strategy allows us to not us a special tool for each language.
What do you think about it ?
Cheers
---
Jannik Laval
_______________________________________________
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