[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Post-it project (Re: Feature suggestion)

From: Shigio Yamaguchi
Subject: Re: Post-it project (Re: Feature suggestion)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 00:31:14 +0900

> I agree except for the main.c:55 idea. I think there should be one
> comments file per file, and that we should separate line entries within
> the file. My reason for this is the ability to test very quickly if
> there are any comments for a file by testing for the existence of a the
> comments file. We should be able to exit as quickly as possible if there
> is nothing for us to do.

OK. Here is a modified version.
Source file became a directory and line number became a file.

POST-IT DIRECTORY (/home/me/post-it/)
          |-[file]                      <- post-it directory for file.
          |   |-[main.c]
          |   |  |-1                    <- refer main.c at line 1.
          |   |  |-55                   <- refer main.c at line 55.
          |   |-[lib]
          |       |-[util1.c]
          |          |-102              <- refer util.c at line 102.
          |-[define]                    <- post-it directory for definition.
              |-main                    <- refer definition 'main'.
              |-func1                   <- refer definition 'func1'.

I think that we had better make Post-it a separate file so that some
auditors can work on a source file at the same time.
It also makes various operations like list/edit/add/delete easy.
(For example, we can do the work just using ls(1), vi(1), cat(1) and rm(1).)

> It also allows easier extension and "forward porting" of comments files
> once we decide to work on allowing fuzziness, by changing the way in
> which we refer to the lines, but still allowing the old format to work.

I think that we had better avoid to provide format if possible,
because it complicates things. Providing some formats, all client
are required to parse file.
> I imagine we'll already need to support multiple separate comments per
> symbol/line (there can be more than one issue of differing types), so we
> may as well just add line numbers to whatever syntax we come up with for
> that.

I think that it is enough to write them in a Post-it together.
> Sounds fine, although we do need to add some magic way for post-it to
> know where to look for its database when you are in the source tree
> itself. I assume a $HOME/.post-it with a list of mappings
> post-it<->source.

OK. But for me, the following way is a favor.

If user make POST-IT file in the root directory of the source tree,
the contents of the file is taken as POST-IT DIRECTORY.

SOURCE DIRECTORY (/usr/local/source/)
          |-GPATH                   +-------------------+
          |-POST-IT              <- |/home/me/post-it * |
          |-[doc]                   +-----------------|-+
          |-[src]                                     |
        .....                                         |
POST-IT DIRECTORY (/home/me/post-it/)                 |
        [post-it] <-----------------------------------+

Anyway, I want the Post-it mechanism to work well without such file.
I image that a lot of users want to manage the mapping information
by themselves.
Shigio YAMAGUCHI <address@hidden> - Tama Communications Corporation
PGP fingerprint: D1CB 0B89 B346 4AB6 5663  C4B6 3CA5 BBB3 57BE DDA3

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]