[Monodevelop-devel] Working on the monodevelop dom after 2.2
christian.hergert at gmail.com
Tue Sep 22 13:42:54 EDT 2009
I vote +1, this would make the python dom code much more readable.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Mike Krüger <mkrueger at novell.com> wrote:
> Currently we've two DOMs:
> MonoDevelop DOM
> Language specific DOM
> The idea of the monodevelop dom is that most parts of the IDE only use
> the upper level (namespaces/types/members etc.) of the .NET doms for
> some parts (class browser, quick method navigation etc.). This DOM
> reflects the capabilities of .NET reflection.
> Now some people have the opinion that this limits monodevelop when
> supporting non .NET languages and I think they're right.
> I see that currently the main problem is that monodevelop uses the
> type->member model.
> I would rather suggest working with a tree model instead, adding some
> new 'types' to be able to do have a file->member structure.
> I would:
> + Replace IDomVisitable with a tree node - each tree node knows it's
> parent, children and siblings.
> + Remove compilation unit, replace it with IFile.
> Then it's possible to have file->methods/fields as well as
> file->type->methods/members and the class browser/code navigator can
> show the new 'model' as well. I don't expect huge changes in the current
> code base. The parser database needs to change a bit, but shouldn't
> change much.
> And I would like to replace the DomLocation with DocumentLocation from
> the text editor (or offset based from the text editor) - currently we've
> too many ways of representing a location in a file.
> Any opinions on that ?
> Monodevelop-devel-list mailing list
> Monodevelop-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Monodevelop-devel-list