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

[Matt Rogers]

On Friday 25 August 2006 10:39, mwoehlke wrote:
> Kuba Ober wrote:
> >>> KDevelop 4 won't have a new editor.  It is using the KTextEditor
> >>> interfaces. Those interfaces allow KDevelop 4 to choose to do its own
> >>> highlighting.  The only way this could be re-used for KWrite is for the
> >>> default KTextEditor implementation -- katepart -- to use kdevelop-pg
> >>> parsers for its highlighting.  Who knows, perhaps the Kate devels will
> >>> eventually do this, but the place to talk about that is on kwrite-devel
> >>> as you yourself noted.
> >>
> >> True. Well... since obviously the decision is made, I guess I'll wait
> >> and see. I still think it would be good if KATE's highlighting was more
> >> language aware. It will be unfortunate if KATE winds up implementing a
> >> different language-aware parsing engine that competes with KDevelop's.
> >
> > Kate already has it. It's implemented and I don't see it being reworked
> > any time soon, unless a volunteer steps up to the plate. Calling it a
> > parsing engine is buzzowordiness to me. It's a simple state machine
> > coupled to a pattern matcher. Simplicity is the key word here.
> >
> > It works pretty well considered how simple it is. It *is* langauge aware.
> > [snip]
>
> "Grammar" aware; KATE doesn't know about grammars. The point would be to
> have MUCH better error detection, primarily, but I think it would be
> useful in other ways as well. But as you say, SHTDI and it isn't likely
> to happen any time soon. However, since it no longer sounds like
> KDevelop is implementing a full-fledged grammar-based highlighter
> (instead they are doing something that works /with/ KATE, not /instead/
> of KATE), there is no urgency.
>
> > Have you actually tried what you're talking about?
>
> I know it works *now*... it was sounding like it was going to *stop*
> working, which is what I was worried about. :-)
>
> > The only thing, I gather, that KDevelop may potentially do is override
> > the highlighting for files it knows how to highlight better than what
> > Kate does. That more powerful highlighting functionality could be
> > potentially put into a separate framework and made useable by Kate (and
> > other applications), but again -- someone has to design it and code it
> > first. I suggest you give it a try if you place such a high value on that
> > feature (as you claim).
>
> If you read the further posts, it sounds like this is NOT what KDevelop
> is doing. And what I place high value on is not reinventing the wheel
> somewhere that it can only benefit a subset of users. But this is not
> what is happening. Please go back and read the rest of the thread.

But it will do it for KDevelop 4, so this all seems to be a moot point.
-- 
Matt