Re: Re: software design clarification

On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 12:16 -0400, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Roman Yakovenko wrote:
> > On 5/8/07, Nathaniel Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
[...]
> > 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.

he he, processing internal representation.
Have done that too.
Setup your thing to be able to handle version difference
like have you try output from GCC 4.1

> 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.

You have to rephrase that
GCC and Synopsis parsers are identical at the behavior level.
For Type analysis Synopsis try to do same thing at same place
but is doing it partially or not at all.  That means GCC type analysis
can be hook up on Synopsis, the only major difference now is
the mangling.

>  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 ?

parse trees are great for source to source modification.

if you are not doing that use AST.