I have updated the proposal <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HFWvBV-NjQVd2Tvv4-_tlNrGG52WWxJUlUlByLxfOog> according to the latest suggestions. Please review the final draft. I am uploading it to the website now and if required, I will update it!
Also, thanks for the guidance about Fortran :) On Sunday, 29 March 2020 02:52:46 UTC+5:30, Nikhil Maan wrote: > > If you also plan to help out with Fortran, since you'll be improving the > previous parsers, I think it'll be better to work on the C and Fortran > parser together during the initial period. > > I'll suggest something like Week 1-6 or the C and Fortran Parser and Week > 7-11 on the Java Parser along with the tests and stuff, and keeping week 12 > as a buffer. > That's my rough estimate. You can tune it as per your comfort. > > Also, don't worry about learning Fortran, If you know C, you'll be able to > learn it easily during the community bonding period. I did too :) > And you can ping us if you need any help regarding that. > > As for the C parser backend, I'd suggest we stick to Clang for now. It's > definitely better than pycparser. I'm looking into what can be done for the > bindings. > > Regards, > Nikhil Maan > > On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 4:55:47 PM UTC+5:30, Gajjar Smit wrote: >> >> Hi Ondrej Sir, >> >> Thank you for the suggestions. I will look into it and update it >> accordingly. >> >> I think I can start C Parser implementations from Community Bonding >> Period itself and start making PRs(there is a whole month and I don't >> think, it is justifiable only for Community Bonding! Also, I have started >> working on few implementations from now too, but because of some college >> assignments to be submitted on Google Classroom, I am getting lesser time >> nowadays) >> >> Regarding Fortran integration, I went through the current >> implementation(fortran_parser) and I think I can encompass its remaining >> implementation work in last 2-2.5 weeks of Phase 3, since code for Java >> Parser is expected to be 80-85 percent ready till then. If few things are >> still left in the Fortran parser, I would love to continue after GSoC too! >> >> But, I would like to let you know that it is necessary for me to first >> get approval from you and my current potential mentor Nikhil in this >> regard, since I am participating for the first time and I might have >> underestimated the time to complete the milestones. >> >> Also, do note that I have never worked with Fortran, so I will have to >> spend almost a week on that!(I have worked on many programming languages, >> so it won't take much time to get used to it) >> >> Thanks again! >> >> On Sat 28 Mar, 2020, 3:05 AM Ondřej Čertík, <ond...@certik.us> wrote: >> >>> Hi Gajjar, >>> >>> I read through your proposal. It looks good overall. >>> >>> I would suggest to spend more time on the C side than Java, I think C >>> would be very useful for a lot of people. I don't know how many Java users >>> are there that would use the Java backend. >>> >>> Also, if you are interested at all to improve the Fortran integration, >>> let me know. I am looking for students again this year for that. >>> >>> >>> Ondrej >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020, at 1:37 PM, Gajjar Smit wrote: >>> > Yes, as you said, it only supports C99 and C11(partially). It doesn't >>> > support C++ as well. Suggest whatever is necessary. >>> > >>> > Also, do review the proposal >>> > < >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HFWvBV-NjQVd2Tvv4-_tlNrGG52WWxJUlUlByLxfOog/edit?usp=sharing> >>> >>> whenever time permits(I have kept Clang in that as of now), since deadline >>> is approaching. >>> > >>> > On Saturday, 28 March 2020 00:27:33 UTC+5:30, Nikhil Maan wrote: >>> > > I just checked, pycparser only supports C99 and some features of C11 >>> and I don't think it has any support for C++ syntax. >>> > > >>> > > The python bindings for Clang might be less developed, but Clang is >>> clearly more developed than most of the alternatives. >>> > > >>> > > And as far as I've seen, the Clang AST supports these features and >>> many others completely, just the bindings are lacking. So, I think it'll be >>> better to stick to Clang for now. >>> > > Let me see what can be done for the python bindings. >>> > > >>> > > Regards, >>> > > Nikhil Maan >>> > > >>> > > On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 11:50:44 PM UTC+5:30, Gajjar Smit wrote: >>> > >> I have successfully parsed variable declaration in C using >>> pycparser and stored it inside sympy/parsing/c2/c_parser2.py. I am making a >>> PR! Please have a look. If you feel that it is good to do it for other >>> implementations, please suggest! >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> > Groups "sympy" group. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> send >>> > an email to sy...@googlegroups.com. >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/292c30cf-8e97-4829-848a-2e868d9023dc%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> < >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/292c30cf-8e97-4829-848a-2e868d9023dc%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer >>> >. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "sympy" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to sy...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/49169ef1-1707-42b7-bdbb-fc1efbd645c9%40www.fastmail.com >>> . >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/aba4fd5d-b62d-418a-8400-1ae8baad7d1f%40googlegroups.com.
