Related articles |
---|
[3 earlier articles] |
Re: Smart textual editors gupta@csc.ti.com (1996-07-20) |
Re: Smart textual editors mihai@west.net (Mihai Christodorescu) (1996-07-20) |
Re: Smart textual editors bjm@dcs.ed.ac.uk (1996-07-22) |
Re: Smart textual editors cuedng@uic.edu (Nick Geovanis) (1996-07-23) |
Re: Smart textual editors mihai@west.net (Mihai Christodorescu) (1996-07-23) |
Re: Smart textual editors peach@entrenet.com (1996-07-24) |
Re: Smart textual editors darius@phidani.be (Darius Blasband) (1996-07-24) |
Re: Smart textual editors pc@linus.mitre.org (1996-07-26) |
Re: Smart textual editors yuval.peduel@channel1.com (1996-07-26) |
Re: Smart textual editors bdynin@movil.com (1996-07-26) |
Re: Smart textual editors balaji@platinum.com (1996-08-01) |
From: | Darius Blasband <darius@phidani.be> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 24 Jul 1996 22:53:01 -0400 |
Organization: | Phidani Software, Brussels |
References: | 96-07-103 96-07-115 |
Keywords: | syntax, tools |
> > 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
applied successfully.
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...
Regards,
darius
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.