[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subject"Anyone who likes complexity and fuzzy logic" (Re: [PATCH] headerdep:...)
    Matthew Wilcox @ Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:17:14 -0600:

    > I think a more useful tool would be one which mapped something like
    > 'use of down()' to 'needs to include <linux/semaphore.h>'. It needs
    > to be at least somewhat done by hand because there are rules such
    > as 'include linux/spinlock.h to get spinlock_t' (which is actually
    > defined in linux/spinlock_types.h), but you want people to include
    ><linux/completion.h> directly rather than rely on it being pulled in
    > through linux/sched.h, for example.
    > It's further complicated by multi-file drivers, such as qla2xxx. Each
    > file includes qla_def.h which includes a lot of the necessary header
    > files for them ... but then each file will include a few more header
    > files that it needs.
    > So some implicit includes are _good_ and other implicit includes are
    > _bad_ (as they hurt when trying to rationalise the header files).
    > Anyone who likes complexity and fuzzy logic like this want to take a
    > stab at writing such a tool?

    Why? Why GNU C compiler developers didn't do such (obviously useful)
    tool? C compiler (some part of it) *is* responsible for parsing,
    tokenizing, etc. Why there is development of never-ending buggy
    optimizations only[0]?

    Matthew, i know you've asked for regular expressions ninjas once, here
    simple example.

    Syntax highlighting for text editors is the most notable
    invention/implementation for ease of programming in last 20 years or so.

    Question: why any parser, e.g. GNU/FOSS [C, SED, AWK, ELISP], Perl,
    Python, do NOT have option to output OWN highlighted syntax? Don't those
    parsers know what they parse, rules, syntax errors, etc.[1]? (Note: at
    least framework in parser, so that trivial extending/configuring would be

    Is it really so complex?

    =[0]= rant =[0]=

    Isn't that hardware had developed in exponential rate toward speed and
    cache/RAM size, so any bloat and huge volumes of sources without flexible
    configuration systems (to download and work with e.g. only one GCC or
    Linux port) are handled quickly?

    =[1]= rant =[1]=

    No, unreadable and buggy regexp-based highlighting is everywhere with
    never-ending features added WRT basic regular expressions!

    For those Perl hackers out there: why mister Wall is attributed to
    invent non greedy RE match, why he did so by introducing non portable
    and non-readable syntax to already crappy RE?

    Simple BRE based idea: '\{0, s\}'. Just like `sed` had overcame second
    RE basic pronciple: first-match, by using flags 's///here'.

    No, let's invent crutches!

    Oh, crap....
    sed 'sed && sh + olecom = love' << ''
    #oo'L O
    <___=E M

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-30 19:39    [W:0.022 / U:10.436 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site