Issue with KDevelop: Is it using different parsers in parallell for different puropuses?

[mwoehlke]

Erik Sigra wrote:
> On 14.08.06 13:30:19, Erik Sigra wrote:
>> 2. kate is an editor it's not part of kdevelop and the kdevelop
>> developers have only partial influence on what the kate developers use
>> for parsing files.
> 
> Kate is part of KDevelop when I am using KDevelop (although I have read
> that it is possible to use other editors in KDevelop. KDevelop users
> have enough influence on the Katepart to turn off it's syntax parsing
> if it becomes redundant because KDevelop can do it better.
> 
>> 3. Kate probably doesn't need all the extra information ANTLR has
> 
> I am not so sure about that. I have seen suboptimal
> highlighting/folding/indenting/linewrapping because Kate's primitive
> parsers do not understand the languages well enough.

Ahem. We don't care. The KDevelop team is not going to take over KATE. 
Take your request to KATE's list. Or, as you point out in #2, suggest an 
ANTLR-based editor that KDevelop might use instead of KATE.

To be honest, I have also gone through the 'gee, it would be really nice 
if KATE actually understood *langauges*'. But that doesn't change that 
you're on the wrong list.

>> 4. Kate supports much more languages than kdevelop does (for parsing matter)
> 
> Good. Just keep using Kates XML-defined parsers for the languages that
> do not have ANTLR parsers.
> 
>> the support for new languages doesn't always come from the
>> developers themselves. Thus the people writing parsers for kate do not
>> necessarily know antlr or what a language grammar is.
> 
> I would rather not use a parser written by someone who does not even
> know what a language grammar is. I am afraid it would just be too
> shoddy.

People writing a parser for Wiki (for KATE) might not know what a 
language grammar is, but you can bet there are lots of people that *do* 
know using the parsers for things like C and Java. If they were broken 
'because the author doesn't know what a language grammar is', someone 
would notice and fix things pretty fast. Your concern is unfounded. We 
were *trying* to point out that KATE is used for a *LOT* more than just 
KDevelop. You seem to have missed the point. You are also clearly 
expecting more from the highlighters than what most of them currently 
provide, but that being the case, this conversation is academic because 
  KATE itself does not know about language grammars.

>> If you think kate should use an antlr parser please write to
>> kwrite-devel and start the discussion there.
> 
> I was not thingking along those lines. For the time being I just wanted
> to know if the more advanced parsers that KDevelop already has could
> take over some tasks that the Katepart does, and do them better.

Not without writing another KATE, which is unlikely. If we get an editor 
that "understands language grammar", I would much prefer it to be KATE 
than some entirely new editor. That way everyone benefits; not just 
people using KDevelop.

There is another argument for sticking with KATE; it allows single 
source files to be opened outside of KDevelop in the same underlying 
editor (so you get the same experience). It also allows KDevelop to 
understand any files that KATE does; not necessarily "source code" files 
(shell scripts, for instance).

I think the best solution is as you noted in #4; give KATE the ability 
to understand two types of highlighters. (And hey, if we go there, maybe 
we can make it understand VIM as well :-).)

-- 
Matthew
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad... You must be, or you wouldn't 
have come here." -- The Cheshire Cat