Le 23/10/2012 04:58, Lex Trotman a écrit :
OOps previous post sent before completion.
On 23 October 2012 12:42, Lex Trotman <elextr@gmail.com mailto:elextr@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
c: ok, complete parsing of numbers may help, but it probably would just not highlight the non-numeric suffix (as the string suffixes, your "d" point). Though, note that the current highlighting of numeric constant is perfectly exact from the C preprocessor point of view (last point of http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Incompatibilities.html). BTW, I have a patch for "proper" number parsing I did for the Vala number methods bug. Yes, for C, the definition of "preprocessor token" for C++11 has been extended to include user defined literals. Scintilla may need to be fixed to distinguish standard numbers from user numbers so we can highlight them differently, same for string user literals below.
I attached the patch I was talking about, 0001-LexCPP-really-parse-numeric-constants.patch
I'll discuss it on the Scintilla ML or BT soon too.
d: this is not really fixable, how would you differentiate a "string"MACRO_OR_DEFINE from those C++11 user literals? As I read C++11 standard thats a user defined literal token, not a string token and an identifier token, rather like the number-number example (in the gcc doc you referenced above) isn't two numbers subtracted. Its something that may be different between C and C++ and c.c and Lexcpp.cxx may need changing to reflect that.
OK, GCC agrees with you. So C++11 is incompatible with earlier versions of C++, wow. Wonderful. This probably means we'll need a new filetype, lexer and parser for this new C++11 language :)
f: ok, quite easy to fix, but having declarations (so without the definition) in the type list may confuse the scope completion code (since the declaration is a perfect match, simply with no children).Yeah, I guess completion has to be taught to ignore tags with no content in favour of ones with content.
Well, for C it'd be OK since empty structures (and probably others) are invalid, but that's probably not the case for other languages, so simply skipping empty containers would only give *more* suggestions, not *better* ones.
Anyway, patch 0001-Create-tags-of-the-appropriate-type-for-forward-type.patch attached -- though again I'm not sure it's good.
[...] n: I don't understand this one.Ok, I did say being picky, but it affects autocomplete. In C++11 you can delete inherited functions (at least the special member functions, and I think any one) using a function declaration = delete; syntax. These functions are unavailable and shouldn't be in autocomplete, but because they look like declarations, at the moment, they are in the symbols looking like normal functions and they are in autocomplete.
OK, so any "= delete" declaration should simply be ignored?
v: nor do I get this one.I was just saying "I know its documented as a limitation, but the fact that local declarations are not parsed is still a deficiency". As mentioned on IRC I have been trying various fixes for this but have gotten nowhere.
OK, so that's more a feature request than a bug ;)
Cheers, Colomban