On Jun 6, 2012, at 3:23 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Daniel & me have worked on a first proposal to provide an interface for clang
> formatting as part of the Tooling library.
>
> Please re-send the patch as an attachment? Email plays havoc w/ 80-columns.
>
> Done.
>
> Thanks!
>
> I think it would help a lot to have a bit more code & context when evaluating
> this, even as a very early step.
>
> My concrete suggestion would be this: implement a bozo-formatter. A
> completely trivial to implement, BS set of rules that only requires lexing.
> Then we can see the interface, a trivial implementation, and some test cases
> that use it. I think that'll make this much easier to review and really
> analyze. It also makes it much closer to something that could get checked in
> as a stepping stone
Yes, please! In fact, I don't think we should even try to design the
AnalyzableSource interface now, because we're not likely to know what we need
until we have at least some basic formatting.
Personally, I think we can get fairly far with lexer-based formatting, and I
think we should start there. From that, I hope that we can build a semantic
interface that allows partial information to be useful, e.g., "is this
identifier 'foo' at line 5, column before a '<' referring to a template name or
not?". We can definitely answer with a parse, but we can also guess if we have
a little knowledge of the names of templates in our system.
Allowing the use of partial information is important because we'll probably
want to use this code formatting tool even in places where getting an AST is
either too expensive or not generally possible, e.g., within an editor.
> Questions:
> - please point out anything that might make this interface not viable for
> your own use cases
> - are we missing the point somewhere?
> - is Tooling/ the right place for this?
>
> I think Tooling is the right place because I think essentially every tool
> anyone writes will want to have *some* formatting applied to it. Leveraging
> this from an existing tool and composing cleanly w/ it will almost certainly
> be important.
It seems more general than tooling. In particular, I'd like to expose this
through libclang, which doesn't need any of the other tooling infrastructure.
How about the Edit lib?
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
