On 04/02/07, Richard Gaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Bovill wrote: > The hard bit is to be able to match the function call... What is this to be used for?
Its for graphing relationships between handlers. An itch I have been wanting to scratch for a very long time now. A problem I have are "dead functions" - that is the stuff hanging around in libraries that are used rarely or perhaps never. I also want to be able to reliably extract stand-alone collections of handlers from these libraries so that you do not have to distribute entire libraries with the finished code. If this is a code base analysis tool, one in which you might already
have had occasion to obtain a list of function names, might it simplify things to search for those?
To work backwards? Hmmm... I guess but it would miss one point which seems to be proving somewhat useful - the ability to spot "missing" handlers prior to coming across the bug. The graphing tool bundles all handlers it cannot find into one a "Missing" box. It is not as useful as the ability to extract code and view realationships - so the approach you suggest has merit... still would need to distinguish between handlers with the same name and different types (command, function, get/setprop) in any case? _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
