[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp

From: Stephen Leake
Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:20:35 -0600
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (windows-nt)

Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Nobody can parse C++ reliably.  GCC has given up on trying to teach
>>> Bison (aka LALR(1) and then some) how to parse C++ and has implemented
>>> its own hand-written parser.
>> I understand the potential difficulties, but since we only need a
>> relatively small part of parsing,
> Why do we need a small part of parsing? For implementing C++ smart
> completion on a reliable way, you need semantic analysis. Furthermore,
> people here are talking too much about completion, but there are other
> features that require whole-program semantic analysis and hence are out
> of reach of the approaches mentioned here based on gcc spitting
> not-quite-comprehensive information.


Refactoring tools, for example; rename this class member function, and
all references to it, but _not_ references to the same name in _other_
classes, or the same name declared as a local variable. Do rename in
classes that derive from this class.

AdaCore GPS does this, for Ada and C++.

>> I don't understand why, sorry.  Are we still talking about smart
>> completion, i.e. displaying candidate expansions of text at or near
>> point?  Or are we talking about something else?
> Dunno about David, but I say "yes", for smart completion you need way
> more than quick & dirty parsing.

Especially when one of the possible completions is a list of parameters
for a function call.

-- Stephe

reply via email to

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