Am 30.08.2016 um 03:56 schrieb Lex Trotman:
On 29 August 2016 at 22:38, Thomas Martitz <ku...@rockbox.org> wrote:
Am 29.08.2016 um 14:23 schrieb Lex Trotman:
This adds per use case hooks to plugins, which then became part of the
stable API. I don't think that we have to codify every single use case of
tags into the plugins. That's just making it harder (maybe impossible?) to
change or add use cases.
The point of this proposal is to change and add use-cases that are not
currently possible with the current plugin API. But instead of each
use-case generating its own piece of API and its own infrastructure,
the point of the FT-plugins proposal is to provide a common
infrastructure and approach for all filetype specific use-cases, those
needed for currently suggested uses, indentation, clang based styling
and symbols, and as framework for future use-cases we either havn't
thought of, or havn't a concrete intention to add immediately.
I thought we agreed that plugin should simply provide tags to Geany/TM
This proposal is about many types of filetype specific functionality,
not just tags. Tagmanager will not help in any way with indenting
Haskell, or even C++.
4 of 5 of the proposed features are strictly tag-related. And Geany can do
all of them already, it's just that the current implementation leaves things
to be desired so there is the idea to let plugins improve upon them.
Well, 3 out of 6 but whos counting :)
I count "Go To Declaration/Definition" as a tag issue. Where a symbol is
stored,
and whether it's a definition or declaration, is contained in tags.
I did not count the build/run support, diagnostics and refactoring
because there was no specific propsal given.
Certainly 1) showing symbols in the symbol list, 2) autocomplete and
3) calltips are currently available to a degree in Geany. But
highlighting, build commands and build result handling are not.
But
to be able to do 2) and 3) accurately needs more knowledge of each
language semantics than is currently available in Geany or tagmanager.
That's right. But it doesn't mean the features should be *entirely*
moved into plugin space. TM should be improved to be able to hold
sufficient information, and plugins should help by providing that data.
But *just* the data, don't offload very specific use cases onto them,
this will make us less flexible in the long run. If Geany has the data,
we can implement new features inside Geany or non-ft-plugins. Otherwise
we would have to modify every single ft-plugin for new features and
exclude non-ft-plugins.
I disagree with the proposed solution for those 4, because they are
offloading logic on a per feature basis to plugins, only because Geany isn't
capable at the moment. If Geany was capable, then there could be 1 solution
for the 4 features and less complexity in each plugin (and we know the
quality of plugins varies a lot so they should have little complexity as
possible).
Encoding the knowledge of language semantics into Geany, for each
language supported, is going to make autocomplete and calltip code
look like c.c. Its not the way to go.
Nobody suggested to encode specific language semantics into Geany. I'm
suggesting TM should become more generic, i.e. TMTag should transport as
much information as required (even if some of it can't be provided by
ctags but only some plugins).
The solution I have in mind simply allows plugins to pass tags to Geany
which they parsed with more advanced code. The tags itself would advanced
too, to allow for the improvements current TM+ctags can't offer. Symbol
tree, calltips, autocompletion, jump-to-decl can all be improved based on
the advanced tags.
Well, again you are encoding language semantics into Geany, for
example for C++ that means autocompletion and calltips need to handle
1) local symbol scopes, 2) member functions being in the scope of the
class, even when they are not 3) argument dependent lookup 4) template
expansion lookup and 5) handling of template parameter based typing.
These are hard, just ask the GCC and clang guys. And every user of
Geany will have to pay the cost of the code they don't use, unless
they use C++.
Then for a multidispatch language like Julia you need to handle
overloading in an even more subtle way than C++ overloading.
And why re-implement these language specific subtle and difficult
features in Geany when more and more languages are providing libclang
like libraries to do it for us, accurately and up to date with the
language.
Most of the issues don't apply to just C++ but so many other languages
as well (e.g. Java). All of them can be improved more easily, not just
C++, if Geany can offer a powerful framework for that. But the framework
Matthew proposed is not powerful to me. It just evades the current
problems simply by moving Geany's deficiencies to the plugin space.
Best regards
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
