Adding Ruby support to Source Navigator

Adding Ruby support to Source Navigator

[Dave Thomas]

I've written a Source Navigator parser, and I'm in the middle of
writing a highlight parser, for the Ruby language.

What is the recommended way of distributing this? I can see how I can 
ship the parser separately, but unless I'm misunderstanding something
the highlighter has to be linked in to the product.

Would you folks be interested in adding this Ruby support to the main
product?


Regards


Dave

Re: Adding Ruby support to Source Navigator

[Mo DeJong]

On 10 Nov 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:
 
> I've written a Source Navigator parser, and I'm in the middle of
> writing a highlight parser, for the Ruby language.
> 
> What is the recommended way of distributing this? I can see how I can 
> ship the parser separately, but unless I'm misunderstanding something
> the highlighter has to be linked in to the product.
> 
> Would you folks be interested in adding this Ruby support to the main
> product?

Well, are you going to be around to help keep it working?
I don't know that would have a problem with adding support
for ruby, I just want to make sure we don't end up with
an abandoned parser. I know Ben was thinking about what
changes would be needed to move the syntax highlighter
out of the core, but he would know more about that.

Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc

Re: Adding Ruby support to Source Navigator

[Ben Elliston]

Yo Mo,

   Well, are you going to be around to help keep it working? I don't know
   that would have a problem with adding support for ruby, I just want to
   make sure we don't end up with an abandoned parser. I know Ben was
   thinking about what changes would be needed to move the syntax
   highlighter out of the core, but he would know more about that.

I've already started -- I have the configury in place to build the syntax
highlighters as shared libraries with libtool.  The next step is to just add
in the hooks to load these libraries with Tcl's "load" command at start-up.

I'm trying to decide whether all libraries matching a specific pattern (say,
"*high*.so" should be loaded, or whether they should be named explicitly in
the configuration file.  Thoughts?

At any rate, this'll be a vast improvement.

Ben

Re: Adding Ruby support to Source Navigator

[Syd Polk]

Ben Elliston wrote:
> 
> Yo Mo,
> 
>    Well, are you going to be around to help keep it working? I don't know
>    that would have a problem with adding support for ruby, I just want to
>    make sure we don't end up with an abandoned parser. I know Ben was
>    thinking about what changes would be needed to move the syntax
>    highlighter out of the core, but he would know more about that.
> 
> I've already started -- I have the configury in place to build the syntax
> highlighters as shared libraries with libtool.  The next step is to just add
> in the hooks to load these libraries with Tcl's "load" command at start-up.
> 
> I'm trying to decide whether all libraries matching a specific pattern (say,
> "*high*.so" should be loaded, or whether they should be named explicitly in
> the configuration file.  Thoughts?

Hmm. I hate configuration files. I would vote for a pattern.

Something like:

sn*high*.so on unix

and

sn*high*.dll on windows.



> 
> At any rate, this'll be a vast improvement.
> 
> Ben

Re: Adding Ruby support to Source Navigator

[Ben Elliston]

   > I'm trying to decide whether all libraries matching a specific pattern (say,
   > "*high*.so" should be loaded, or whether they should be named explicitly in
   > the configuration file.  Thoughts?

   Hmm. I hate configuration files. I would vote for a pattern.
   Something like:
   sn*high*.so on unix
   and
   sn*high*.dll on windows.

What about the problems whereby users get confused by implict behaviour?
I have implicit behaviour. :-)

Ben

Re: Adding Ruby support to Source Navigator

[Ian Roxborough]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Ben Elliston wrote:
>    Hmm. I hate configuration files. I would vote for a pattern.
>    Something like:
>    sn*high*.so on unix
>    and
>    sn*high*.dll on windows.
> 
> What about the problems whereby users get confused by implict behaviour?
> I have implicit behaviour. :-)

I'm kind of a fan of having a directory for putting things like highing
libs
in.  SN can then just load all valid shared libraries in this directory.

This is how the new 5.0 toolchain support will work.

Ian.