Re: incremental lexing

[Cody Russell <bratsche gnome org>]

Where do I find this paper by Tim A. Wagner anyway?

On 25 Apr 2001 15:01:19 -0400, Mark Slicker wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Owen Fraser-Green wrote:
> > 
> > I'm interested in helping all I can. At the moment I'm a little bogged down 
> > in another project but I've just sent Tim A. Wagner's paper "Practical 
> > Algorithms for Incremental Software Development Environments" to the 
> > printer so that should make good bedtime reading :)
> >
> 
> That is required reading for this project. ;)
> 
> > Yes, it's very regrettable that they havn't made any code available. I sent 
> > a mail to the head of faculty, Susan Graham but so far havn't received any 
> > reply. I read that Ensemble (Harmonia's predecessor) consisted of over 
> > 300,000 lines of code so I would guess writing even just the incremental 
> > lexing part would be a mamoth task.
> 
> Not really. A good deal of incremental lexing is handled by the batch
> lexer flex, and the incremental algorithm is pretty easy to follow.
> Really, I almost had most of this done and also incremental parsing which 
> is similarly handled by the bison program. The parts I considered more
> difficult or requiring a lot of work are the grammar tools used for
> turning a language specification into a language module used by the
> system. Also incremental semantic analysis looks fairly difficult, mainly
> because their isn't an easy to follow paper like Tim Wagner's Thesis. And
> on top of all of this there is incremental preprocessing required for a
> language like C or C++. I had a good idea of how to handle this, but it is
> still a bit of work to implement it properly.
> 
> Any way, you can see that there is a lot of work to get to point of where
> Harmonia is. Working on an alternative is only justified by uncertainy of
> a release of Harmonia, or by techincal considerations after seeing a
> release of Harmonia. I am somewhat uncertain of release date, if they say
> months, it would probably be reasonable to expect a release by the end of
> the year. There is always a possiblity of not releasing at all. Another
> option for us is just completing the structural analysis part of gpf. I
> think this would be quite useful to have, even if the application writer
> would have to handle the semantic analysis (if required) him or her
> self. And it could probably be completed in a reasonable amount of time.
> 
> > 
> > Assuming you do decide to resurrect gpf, could you consider moving it to 
> > SourceForge to open the development cycle up to others including myself. 
> > For that matter, would it be viable to move the whole gIDE project to SF 
> > following the demise of the old home page?
> > 
> 
> I can't comment for gIDE, but I don't know the benifit of moving gpf at
> this point. It's more of a general purpose library, so maybe
> SourceForge is more appropriate, but if it is completed I expect a
> majority of Gnome development tools to use it so this why it might be
> justified for the gnome cvs. In either case the development is just as
> open, but maybe a little less publicised in the gnome cvs.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-devtools mailing list
> gnome-devtools gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-devtools

-- 
Cody Russell, bratsche gnome org
http://www.advogato.org/person/bratsche/