Re: Emacs and C++ codesense

[Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com>]

Maciej Katafiasz <mathrick@gmail.com> writes:

> Den Sat, 05 May 2007 12:18:58 +0200 skrev Hadron:
>
>>>> ok, so it wasn't a demo of what semantic can do. It was a mish mash of
>>>> different things not likely to be reproduced by anyone but yourself :-;
>>>
>>> But of course, large parts of it were due to semantic usage. You asked how
>>> it can fit C coding, this is my answer.
>> 
>> But which bits? I have no idea which bits were semantic and which others
>> were part of your "mish mash of other packages".
>
> Semantic shines through whenever you can see emacs visibly having an idea
> about the code's meaning. In this demo, it means 1) the suggestion popus
> 2) the second time I use `fwritex' template, in which FILE *STREAM formal
> parameter is replaced by a choice of all currently visible variables of
> type FILE*
>
>>>> Why did you do your own completion? What was wrong with intellisense?
>>>> Have you used intellisense?
>>>
>>> Uhh, this *is* intellisense. At least as long as you regard
>>> "intellisense"
>> 
>> Well, when you say your wrote your own completion package, how is one
>> supposed to know the difference?
>
> "intellisense" is either 1) IntelliSense, a trademarked name for MSVS

Why would I be talking about Intellisense from MS? What sense would that
make when discussing semantic in an emacs NG?

> context-sensitive completion, in which case none of the above is
> intellisense 2) a generic name for a class of similarly-working packages,
> in which case both are implementations of intellisense. If you want to
> know the difference, download the package and read the description 

Are really do not know why you appear to be so determined to make this
difficult. Do you really think I mean anything other than the
Intellisense which is part of the semantic package? And is called
"Intellisense" by cedet package itself? Here:

http://cedet.sourceforge.net/intellisense.shtml

>
>>> as a generic description and not trademarked name by MSFT. I wrote it
>>> because the existing completion popups for semantic were not close
>>> enonugh to the original IntelliSense, or rather, diverged in ways that
>>> seriously hindered their usefulness.
>> 
>> I turn the pop ups off and use tab cycle completion - works quite
>> nicely.
>> 
>> But again, could U request some sort of explanation of the demo gif?
>> Just looking at it tells me nothing whatsoever about how you used
>> semantic to do a job of work.
>
> Not really, I don't have the time for that now. I intend to turn it into a
> properly integrated and easy to install and setup package, but it hasn't
> happened yet.

Cheers.

Basically all you have said is "look at this gif which is made by a
mash of packages only I know about". How that is supposed to help in any
way understand semantic is beyond me. It does look impressive though and
my basic frustration is simply being unable to get it (semantic) to work
anything like you have demonstrated :-(

>
> Cheers,
> Maciej
>
>
>

--