hermitte wrote: >> I'm not sure how many people are interested in on-the-fly > compilation. > > I'm not really because I program mainly in C++, and my > experience demonstrates that after the first error it is not > uncommon to have the compiler completely lost. Thus I know > this will be a very complex task, and I'm not sure it can be done. > > However, I do am interested in something able to understand > C++ constructs in order to built even more powerful code > transformations and generations. > As such, this GSOC project may initiate the development of > the API I'm missing. > Hence I'm looking forward to it.
Me too! This project will either never see the light of day, or it will perform a miracle and work in only a slightly irritating fashion. In both cases, it would have been better if the effort had been directed at something more productive. Consider the issue recently raised by Dominique Pelle: People editing C++ code would really appreciate a bit more intelligence applied to the tags feature so that Ctrl-] would try a bit harder to jump to the correct overloaded name. That would be tricky, but more achievable and much more worthwhile. I don't see how the intelligent tags request would be assisted by work from on-the-fly syntax checking because common sense confirms Bram's point that writing a generic syntax checker ain't really going to work (and would be unnecessarily complex). John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
