[fpc-devel] Troubles with FPDOC in 2.5.1 and 2.4.1

Mattias Gaertner nc-gaertnma at netcologne.de
Sat May 15 14:58:32 CEST 2010

On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:33:07 +0200
Mattias Gaertner <nc-gaertnma at netcologne.de> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:00:47 +0200 (CEST)
> marcov at stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
> > In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said:
> > > Yes.
> > > I think implementation needs good comments. The local types and
> > > variables don't need fpdoc docs, do they?
> > > If someone wants to use fpdoc for implementation, maybe it should
> > > be made optional?
> > 
> > Mattias, what did you use for testing? makeskel/fpdoc?
> No. I wrote a small program to parse every fcl unit.
> Maybe I find today some time to create a patch to make fpdoc parse only
> to implementation.
> > I've searched for a test that simply dumped the parsetree (e.g. to check if
> > ^g is really transformed to something like a char/string literal), but
> > haven't found anything.

The parser parses expression as whole and only stores the whole
expression as string. This is done because in order to parse an
expression you need to resolve identifiers, because operators are
context sensitive. A simple parser can not do that. If the parser does
not resolve identifiers it can only create symbol structures which
would be as complicated as parsing the expression.
In this sense the fcl parser already supports ^g constants.


More information about the fpc-devel mailing list