From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Engster Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:31:44 +0100 Message-ID: <874n3ke1qn.fsf@engster.org> References: <87wqgr4v18.fsf@yandex.ru> <53064BD0.7070009@yandex.ru> <87ha7tr5bo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ppmhecd8.fsf@yandex.ru> <87y50z90pd.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87txbn8r6x.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8338j717oe.fsf@gnu.org> <87zjlf6tdx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83sir7yue7.fsf@gnu.org> <8761o3dlak.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <871tyqes5q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87a9ddg7o8.fsf@engster.org> <87d2i9ee8t.fsf@engster.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393533125 28011 80.91.229.3 (27 Feb 2014 20:32:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:32:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D3scar?= Fuentes , Emacs developers To: John Yates Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 27 21:32:14 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJ7cr-0005yy-Ra for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:32:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47819 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJ7cr-0000d3-E8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:32:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44786) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJ7ci-0000SP-Or for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:32:10 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJ7cc-0002Ya-P0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:32:04 -0500 Original-Received: from randomsample.de ([5.45.97.173]:53891) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJ7cc-0002St-FM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:31:58 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=randomsample.de; s=a; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=aRrB4jDRPQmsNmPp5OTcRy/xud48/ca8qg4keB+ZW0o=; b=sYUz4fCY7TS4h4ebiPmsbC4SSpZ2SNvm6si9ip/C0dh/XDv02mIlwgnFS3gC27Im5gP/qQayaihR62hMht0VGFJTWQ+kwZgXQRSAurQb3LOBbFcL0xDWz77vtXmAONEm; Original-Received: from dslc-082-083-054-035.pools.arcor-ip.net ([82.83.54.35] helo=spaten) by randomsample.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WJ7cT-0004UW-PZ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:31:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: (John Yates's message of "Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:13:13 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Mail-Followup-To: John Yates , =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D3sc?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ar?= Fuentes , Emacs developers X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 5.45.97.173 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:169912 Archived-At: John Yates writes: > I was responding to this paragraph: > >> CEDET will most probably never be able to refactor C++ code, aside from >> very simple cases. There are very few IDEs out there which even try to >> do that; from my experience, none of them do it 100% reliably (just >> bring some meta template programming into the game and see what >> happens). IMHO, "Refactoring C++" should not be in the job description. > > To me that sounded like you were dismissing all attempts across all IDEs = to > implement "Refactoring C++". =A0Perhaps on re-reading what you meant was = that > 100% reliable refactoring of C++ should not be a CEDET goal. =A0Was that = what you > meant? It is not *my* goal, and it is used here to steer people away from working on Semantic's C++ parser, saying it is pointless if it can never do refactoring, which is a *much* harder problem than providing completions. I don't see the point in discouraging people like that. Anyway, Stefan gave is OK on libclang usage, so the initial problem that started this discussion is solved, and I suggest you start hacking. > I did say that if you will accept nothing less than perfection, > then by all means implement your clang-based silver bullet. > > Do you foresee a future in which Emacs + ELPA will offer "lead bullet" le= vel > C++ refactoring? As always: unless someone starts working on these things, nothing will happen, and surely nothing comes out of those centi-threads we seem to have every month nowadays. -David