On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:33:07 +0200 Mattias Gaertner <nc-gaert...@netcologne.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:00:47 +0200 (CEST) > mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote: > > > In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said: > > > Yes. > > > I think implementation needs good comments. The local types and > > > variables don't need fpdoc docs, do they? > > > If someone wants to use fpdoc for implementation, maybe it should > > > be made optional? > > > > Mattias, what did you use for testing? makeskel/fpdoc? > > No. I wrote a small program to parse every fcl unit. > Maybe I find today some time to create a patch to make fpdoc parse only > to implementation. > > > > I've searched for a test that simply dumped the parsetree (e.g. to check if > > ^g is really transformed to something like a char/string literal), but > > haven't found anything. > BTW, The parser parses expression as whole and only stores the whole expression as string. This is done because in order to parse an expression you need to resolve identifiers, because operators are context sensitive. A simple parser can not do that. If the parser does not resolve identifiers it can only create symbol structures which would be as complicated as parsing the expression. In this sense the fcl parser already supports ^g constants. Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
