Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > CodeCompletion redesign

Regular expressions

<< < (7/15) > >>

JGM:
I saw this on wiki


--- Quote ---Questions:

    * why are we storing filepos_end? Wouldn't it be much more useful to store declaration, definition info?

--- End quote ---

I think thats an easy way to help on refactoring and less memory consuming, unless using a database system like sqlite for storing all symbols data, that should be the case when implementing the culmination of all these ideas.

byo:

--- Quote from: JGM on March 11, 2008, 01:38:00 pm ---Cool to see so many interest and effort on planning a new code completion plugin. I just wanted to point that eranif has made a great job, I think that his library support everything that has been discussed here. Check his sample videos here http://codelite.org. His code completion library has involved into a full C/C++ IDE. Some time ago I talk to him to implement a plugin for codeblocks that used his library but I have become some lazy and also out of time.

Maybe theres no need to reinvent the wheel if is good enough  :D

--- End quote ---

I've looked into it and... well... I'm impressed on what this ide can do now. I'll look into source code to see whether it would be hard to integrate with C::B (user interface and overall app design looks very simillarily to C::B ;) ).

BYO

JGM:
Actually it uses most of the components that use code blocks, as scintilla and wxWidgets, maybe is not so hard to use it on codeblocks  :)

byo:

--- Quote from: JGM on March 12, 2008, 09:11:33 pm ---Actually it uses most of the components that use code blocks, as scintilla and wxWidgets, maybe is not so hard to use it on codeblocks  :)

--- End quote ---

I've done some more investigatinos - CodeLite works perfect in many cases but it still have some problems with templates (for example I couldn't make function templates to work). And any more complex template-based code won't work - but that's probably just a temporary issue ;)

And there's another problem - CodeLite uses same approach like C::B in case of code::completion - everything is inside one library so we would have to isolate some parts (like parser) first. We can also drop the idea of splitting cc into smaller parts but I see this as a short-term solution - just imagine that someone wants to improove support for D language providing code::completion for it - everything should be created again - class browsers, symbol storages etc.

And next thing - if we decide to try CodeLite's stuff, we will probably have to branch it's code. So any further updates made in CodeLite would require some work to include in C::B - as long as we don't change it much everything will be fine but If we will have to make some bigger changes then we got a problem with keeping the code up-to-date.

One more question to Ceniza: You said something about new parser, what's the current progress ? Any results now ?

Regards
   BYO

Seronis:
Just curious, has anyone emailed the codelite dev and asked them if they would be interested in trying to integrate it with C::B ?  They -might- be intersted in that and might appreciate the design discussion going on already.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version