Descent, DLTK, Mmrnmhrm [Was: foo!(bar) ==> foo{bar} ==> foo[bar] (just Brackets)]

[Ary Borenszweig]

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to do that in the future, but I don't know if DLTK can 
>>>> provide all the features that Descent provides right now. It would 
>>>> really simplify the development process, adoption of new features 
>>>> right from DLTK, and will make it easy for newcomers help making 
>>>> Descent.
>>>>
>>>> IMP is another possibility, but the same doubt remains...
>>>
>>> DTLK provides most features, but yes, there are some it doesn't. For 
>>> example there is no contribution to the Project Explorer view at all. 
>>> (you must use DLTK's Script Explorer view instead).
>>> But I don't see that as much of problem, because you can keep using 
>>> parts ported from JDT to add up to the base DLTK functionality (I did 
>>> that sometimes in Mmrnmhrm - duplicating DLTK code to override the 
>>> base functionality), so you don't have to drop all the JDT ported code.
>>>
>>> As for the immediate benefits that such transition would bring to 
>>> Descent, well it depends. I was meaning to ask, how much of the 
>>> indexer did you port from JDT? Is it working well?
>>
>> I didn't port any of it. Well, just the necessary stuff to get the 
>> Open Type dialog list all types, and to make top-level declarations 
>> searches. But nothing that is inside methods/functions is indexes, as 
>> far as I know. The search for top-level declarations is working well. 
>> It is not exposed to users, but it is used in autocompletion and in 
>> the Open Type dialog.
> 
> Hum, I see. I guess the advantage of porting to DLTK could be considered 
> "moderate" then (namely the possible new features would be 
> search-for-references, and type hierarchies, as there is in Mmrnmhrm now).
> It would be interesting to try an experimental branch of Descent based 
> on DLTK to actually see how it would work out. I myself would be 
> interested in doing that, but again, unfortunately I won't have the 
> time  :/

Yeah, I'd love that too, but I won't have time either... :/