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

[Ary Borenszweig]

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.