David Nolden zwabel at googlemail.com
Sun Feb 24 01:09:34 UTC 2008

On Sunday 24 February 2008 01:51:53 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> Yeah, still the naming is rather bad IMHO. So we should try to come up
> with some better naming if possible.

Yes I think so too, when starting with the du-chain the whole 
declaration/definition thing was quite confusing to me. I only completely 
understood it after I had to significantly work on every single file that 
deals with that stuff. :)

> > Btw. are we planning to support any other language except C++ that
> > differentiates between Declaration and Definition?
> Actually I can't think of any language that does this right now, in
> particular I can't think of any "cool/hip" language that has separate
> declarations. Anybody else?
> If C++ is really the only case where declaration and definition can
> differ maybe we should rename Declaration to Definition and move all the
> declaration-related stuff into the c++ support?

Since the declaration/definition mapping implementation is separate from the 
actual declaration class(in definitions.cpp), we could move it completely 
into the C++ part without much pain. Even the isDefinition() flag isn't 
really needed when I think of it now, it should be equivalent 
to "internalContext() && internalContext()->type() == DUContext::Other", 
because that means that the declaration has a code-context attached. It might 
be a little strange from a C++ perspective though, because you may have a 
class called "Definition", but that class is actually only a declaration.

However I actually don't really have time until the hackathon, I better even 
shouldn't have done all my last changes, so this probably is nothing I'm 
going to do within the next time.

Maybe we find some time on the hackathon to do some cleanup in the du-chain 

Greetings, David

More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list