search

JoshDreamland / JustDefineIt

C/C++ Definition Parser
GNU General Public License v3.0
6 stars 2 forks source link

Good Job! #7

Open asmwarrior opened 4 years ago

asmwarrior commented 4 years ago

I just want to say your project is great. I see this project is similar to Code::Blocks' internal CodeCompletion C/C++ parser, I hope those two can help each other in the future.

JoshDreamland commented 4 years ago

This means so much to me, especially coming from you. I'm a long-time fan of your work, actually. Thank you!

JoshDreamland commented 4 years ago

Aaaand there it is. Anyway, ignore him.

I'm still in the middle of knocking some dust off of this project and getting support for the features from C++11 and 17 in. I have the latest C++20 draft in front of me, for that reason.

The biggest discrepancy between these two projects (Code::Blocks' parser and JDI) has to do with inspecting actual logic. The original JDI ignored actual function implementations completely. It passed right over them under the assumption that anything between { and } could not affect the set of definitions.

While that looks like an opportunity to allow Code::Blocks' to take over directly, unfortunately JDI doesn't get to be that lazy: I now need accurate evaluation of arbitrary logic in order to evaluate constexpr values, which can change how types are assigned to things entirely.

I have had the Code::Blocks (or general IDE) use case in mind for some time, now. It covers two of my three primary use cases for this project's design:

  1. ENIGMA's use case (cross-language C++ interop),
  2. Code completion use case (control-space in Code::Blocks)
  3. Cross reference and documentation generation (Doxygen, Doxyblocks)

There's definitely tons of overlap between the tools, but I don't know of a clean cut we can make between them, and the approaches look quite different. What do you have in mind?