Andrew Hyatt writes: [snip] > > Using a third party Java-based backend might be easiest, but I'm afraid > that such a loose integration wouldn't give us many of the cool > features we would want. My personal view, that is not shared by many I > fear, is that we should do as much as humanly possible in elisp. The > more we do in elisp, the faster and better integrated it will be. >
I share Andy's bias toward elisp. Regarding semantic, my long-range plan, as stated before, is to provide a parse data API that seamlessly (from the point of view of elisp clients) integrates the classpath (based on Java reflection and perhaps Andy's classfile parser) with the source parse database generated by semantic. The idea is the the API would look first in the semantic database for the requested parse info, then possible in Andy's xref database, and then in the classpath. This would allow completion on fields and methods for which only source code exists or for which only class files exist. My hope is that the Java parser generated by David Ponce's new yacc-style parser generator will be fast enough and complete enough to allow on-the-fly expression syntax error highlighting and other advanced features. Paul
