Where did I say that clang cannot do that [refactor C++]?
Please forgive me if I mis-interpreted what you wrote. Just like Oscar I have tremendous respect for your contributions to Emacs and CEDET.
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++". Perhaps on re-reading what you meant was that 100% reliable refactoring of C++ should not be a CEDET goal. Was that what you meant? Or was it still something else?
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" level C++ refactoring?