Re: Re: software design clarification

Roman Yakovenko wrote:
> On 5/8/07, Nathaniel Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>> That sounds even messier to me, and much harder to keep in sync with.
>> (Though the way Synopsis works, wouldn't it be very simple to have a
>> front-end that eats gccxml and produces the same Synopsis AST as a
>> real front-end would?  If such a processor could be implemented
>> quickly, that'd be very handy for bootstrapping the rest of Synopsis's
>> Cool Stuff and you could just drop in whatever front-end you end up
>> using, when it's ready?)
> 
> I am working exactly on this functionality for pygccxml project. Today
> it is based on GCCXML parser. I hope in few month from now, synopsis
> backend will be also available.

Have you had a look at Synopsis' processor / pipeline design ? I'd
be curious about how useful you find it as a means to drive any source
transformation.

The reason I ask is because I can see yet a different interaction between
Synopsis and Py++ (and GCCXML, for that matter):

What if Py++ itself used Synopsis' pipeline language (and thus, scripting frontend),
to drive the introspection as well as the code generation ?

And, as Nathaniel suggests, we could try to hook up gccxml (and may be elsa)
as alternative C++ parsers. Obviously, the low level bits will differ a lot
(i.e. there is no equivalent of Synopsis's parse tree), but may be for the
AST generation it wouldn't make a difference.

Thoughts ?

Regards,
		Stefan

-- 

      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...