|[3 earlier articles]|
|Re: Smart textual editors email@example.com (1996-07-20)|
|Re: Smart textual editors firstname.lastname@example.org (Mihai Christodorescu) (1996-07-20)|
|Re: Smart textual editors email@example.com (1996-07-22)|
|Re: Smart textual editors firstname.lastname@example.org (Nick Geovanis) (1996-07-23)|
|Re: Smart textual editors email@example.com (Mihai Christodorescu) (1996-07-23)|
|Re: Smart textual editors firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-07-24)|
|Re: Smart textual editors email@example.com (Darius Blasband) (1996-07-24)|
|Re: Smart textual editors firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-07-26)|
|Re: Smart textual editors email@example.com (1996-07-26)|
|Re: Smart textual editors firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-07-26)|
|Re: Smart textual editors email@example.com (1996-08-01)|
|From:||Darius Blasband <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||24 Jul 1996 22:53:01 -0400|
|Organization:||Phidani Software, Brussels|
> > I was looking for smart textual editors. By smart, I mean editors
> > which might be doing data flow analysis and such things even while the
> > editing is in progress so that they can point out the errors to the
> > programmer. (e.g. if certain part of the code is unreachable, then it
> > might give hints to the programmer etc.)
Jacob Navia wrote:
> Having implemented a syntax analyzing editor, I think the editor you want
> is out of the question for the foreseeable future (2-3 years...).
> This simple analysis is very difficult to do in real time: If you happen
> to type a '/' just before a '*' all the text until the end of the file
> will be a comment, and has to be changed (redrawn). The editor has to
> scan each character you type looking for 'interesting' ones, like '/', to
> avoid rescaning the whole file at each character typed.
Given the performance of modern machines, I don't think it would be a true
problem to have a parser going through the entire source when the system is
idle, and which simply does not analyze any further if a syntax error is
found (in which case it might even display a non-intrusive message at the
bottom of the screen). The analysis would be interruptable. If the user
presses a key, the analysis is cancelled, and started again later.
If the language is reasonably easy to analyze (I guess that C and C++'s
preprocessor would make the taks quite more difficuly) I believe - without
formal evidence, though - that this kind of brute force approach could be
We have a Modula-2 oriented editor with a syntax checker that analyzes over
3000 lines per second on a pentium, and it was not even remotely optimized.
I agree that semantical analysis might prove much more difficuly, but my
experience would make me believe that it is perfectly feasible.
In my opinion, of course...
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.