[Geany-Devel] RFC: Merge C and C++ Filetypes (no troll)

[Lex Trotman]

On 29 December 2015 at 21:48, Matthew Brush <mbrush at codebrainz.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29 3:24 AM, Lex Trotman wrote:
>>
>> My only comment is to add to the point that the build commands are
>> different.  For example C that uses "template" as a variable won't
>> compile with C++, a trap for beginners or existing code (just like
>> Geany used to have).
>>
>
> It's probably best that beginners learn early why using "template" or other
> C++ keywords is a rather bad idea, even in plain C. But yeah, there's
> otherwise a pretty big difference between languages/compilers.

There is no reason why a C program can't use "template" or "throw" as
variables, its only a problem if they appear in external headers that
are used by C++.  Compiling it with C++ is the only reason that it
would be a problem, and why should that happen, its C!!! C is not C++,
as Colomban would say :)

>
>> But I would like to also propose (again) an orthogonal split, C/C++
>> headers from C/C++ bodies.  The headers need different compile
>> commands from the bodies.  Using the same command as happens now
>> generates a pre-compiled header file, and then any changes to the
>> header source are not seen when the body is compiled.
>>
>
> As mentioned below, individual file-specific compile-commands is not very
> useful, at least with C or C++.

No, they are not much use to you and I, but they are for beginners,
and beginners are the very people who can't be expected to configure
stuff on day one.  Or write makefiles. So the default commands should
exist, and be safe.

>
>> This can waste significant time, just because the user hit compile
>> after fixing a header issue, but before switching back to the body
>> file.  Its a really nasty trap waiting for the unaware or beginner,
>> and one which we shouldn't be creating.
>>
>
> This is more of a bug that (some) build-commands are bound to individual
> files, which is generally never useful. In most IDEs (including Geany), when
> you trigger a rebuild/re-run, it saves all the files and runs the project's
> build system.

Actually it doesn't include Geany, Geany only saves the current file,
not any other changed files.  Thats something else that was suggested
previously, and rejected.

> Geany supports this fine, and I've never personally found any
> of the file-specific build commands useful. IMO, if you trigger a
> filetype-specific build command on a header, building a pre-compiled header
> file is a perfectly reasonable thing to do (why would you individually
> compile a header otherwise, anyway? Only reason I can see is "on accident").

Indeed, thats what I said above, its easy to do by accident.  And when
its done by accident the PCH is not expected, so its tends to take
some time to find the problem.

>
>> As an alternative to separate filetypes, both of these problems could
>> be avoided if build commands could be different for different
>> extensions.  then one C/C++ filetype is definitely more viable.
>>
>
> Sounds like it would be useful.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Matthew Brush
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.geany.org
> https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel