On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 12:15:09 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 05/09/2014 07:32, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Perhaps I'm nitpicking but an external tools doesn't sound like a good idea. A completely separate library that can be shared among tools and
be integrated into an IDE, absolutely yes. But not a tool.

It's like it was said earlier, a library is easier to integrate, but only if across the same language (for the code the library is written in, and the code the IDE extensions are written in).

Well, I spent a (very little though) time getting informed on how everything could be done using dcd-server running in the background.

1) the communication between dcd-server and dcd-client happens via tcp ipc. So extremely easy to implement 2) The currently edited module's text can be piped through that IPC channel to not have to query the hardware IO all the time. 3) My completion 'model' allows having individual import paths for each edited file, project, super-project aka solution. DCD seems not to support this atm(?). 4) D_Parser is heavily woven with all kinds of Mono-D features, so just ripping out the completion component and replacing it with dcd won't bring anything sustainable, since I'd still had to have raw access to all ASTs out there in order to e.g. display a 'breadcrumb' path bar on the editor's top, the doc outline, refactoring features etc. -- An entirely separate Mono-D is needed imho which probably only features basic projecting/build support as well as dcd bindings.

Did you, Bruno, discarded your customly written completion framework in favor of dcd?

Reply via email to