Recompiling contexts

[Sven Brauch]

*remind* :)

2011/8/27 Sven Brauch <svenbrauch at googlemail.com>:
> Hey,
>
> Maybe you never encountered the problem, I also didn't until now. I
> noticed it because I append those type-hints to function arguments,
> and those are lost when recreating declarations. If you don't do that,
> there's no way to notice this behaviour other than reading debug
> output, I think...
>
> Cheers,
> Sven
>
> 2011/8/27 Milian Wolff <mail at milianw.de>:
>> On Thursday 25 August 2011 16:00:50 Sven Brauch wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I got a problem with contexts being cleaned when recompiling. The
>>> exact situation is this: Assume a function declaration with an
>>> aguments context. If I insert a line before the function declaration,
>>> everything is fine; however, when I remove that line again, the
>>> arguments context is deleted, apparently because it can't be found at
>>> the position where it is expected (for what I understood, the search
>>> starts beginning from the old starting point). This causes problems,
>>> because all the declarations in the context are being re-created then,
>>> and I'd need them to be persistent.
>>> It is bugging me how this is supposed to work. I assumed that magic
>>> RangeInRevision stuff would transform the old context range to the new
>>> one, so it can again be found at the same place. However, the new
>>> modification revision for the context is set after the duchain
>>> analysis is already done, so I don't see how that could work...
>>> The comments for openContext also say something about contexts being
>>> found by their scopeIdentifier, however if I set one for the arguments
>>> context that doesn't solve the problem. I also would not know what
>>> identifier to use for that context (I tried <function name> +
>>> __arguments for testing this, but that's not really an acceptable
>>> solution).
>>> I'm just getting quite confused about this and it would be cool if
>>> someone could tell me how it's supposed to work. Maybe I'm also using
>>> the RangeInRevision "API" in a wrong way?
>>
>> Interesting. I have no idea on how it should work but please remind me again
>> these days and I'll try to see how it is done in PHP. I doubt I ever did
>> something special in that regard.
>>
>> bye
>> --
>> Milian Wolff
>> mail at milianw.de
>> http://milianw.de
>> --
>> KDevelop-devel mailing list
>> KDevelop-devel at kdevelop.org
>> https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinfo/kdevelop-devel
>>
>>
>