| Infix scoping issue [message #1101723] |
Wed, 04 September 2013 21:57  |
 Miles Parker
Messages: 1341
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi all,
Given a grammer like:
Entity :
...
('[' mappings+=Map ("," mappings+=Map)* ']')?
...
Map :
source=[Value|QualifiedName] '<->' target=[value|QualifiedName];
QualifiedName returns ecore::EString:
StringId ('::' StringId)*;
StringId returns ecore::EString:
STRING | ID;
With scope provider like:
def IScope scope_Map_source(Map map, EReference ref) {
return Scopes.scopeFor(map..[valid_sources].)
}
def IScope scope_Map_target(Map map, EReference ref) {
return Scopes.scopeFor(map...[valid_targets])
}
When trigerring code completion w/ cursor at beginning of a map entry, I would expect to get content completion for just the valid sources, without qualifiers. However, I actually seem to get both the source and the target completions, with the fully qualified names (which aren't actually legal in this context).
What's interesting is that the text does validate as I expect, it just doesn't return the right scope for the content completion provider.
Naturally, if I modify my grammar to provide a prefix or wrap, it works fine. (But I don't want that.  )
Map :
'(' source=[Value|QualifiedName] '<->' target=[value|QualifiedName] ')';
Note that I have greatly simplified things. (For example, I'm actually creating xcore objects.)
Is this the expected behaviour? If so, any advice on how to modify the grammar or scope to make this work?
thanks!
Miles
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Infix scoping issue [message #1102433 is a reply to message #1102421] |
Thu, 05 September 2013 19:08  |
Miles Parker
Messages: 1341
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Christian,
That did the trick, thanks! I think despite the lengthy explanation (or perhaps because of its lengthiness!) on the xtext docs, I wasn't quite getting the order and context of dispatch. I was trying stuff like:
def IScope scope_Entity_mappings(Entity ctx, EReference ref) {
Which doesn't make much sense either, but the solution you proposed was hard to intuit, because it looks like you're passing in the container to the child and why would we want that? But it makes more sense if you think of the context like "this is the closest enclosing scope that we've constructed at this point"..
Because you have grammars where the order of the parsing really defines the scoping, and you (me, anyway) expect those things to be orthogonal.
cheers,
Miles
|
|
|
| Re: Infix scoping issue [message #1105010 is a reply to message #1102433] |
Mon, 09 September 2013 08:13 |
Jan Koehnlein
Messages: 760
Registered: July 2009
Location: Hamburg |
Senior Member |
|
|
The declarative scope provider with the reflective calls based on naming
conventions is not the most fortunate decision we ever made in Xtext.
Things might get clearer if you override
IScopeProvider.getScope(EObject, EReference) instead and do the
dispatching yourself. It's also a lot easier to debug.
Am 05.09.13 21:08, schrieb Miles Parker:
> Christian,
>
> That did the trick, thanks! I think despite the lengthy explanation (or
> perhaps because of its lengthiness!) on the xtext docs, I wasn't quite
> getting the order and context of dispatch. I was trying stuff like:
>
> def IScope scope_Entity_mappings(Entity ctx, EReference ref) {
>
> Which doesn't make much sense either, but the solution you proposed was
> hard to intuit, because it looks like you're passing in the container to
> the child and why would we want that? But it makes more sense if you
> think of the context like "this is the closest enclosing scope that
> we've constructed at this point"..
>
> Because you have grammars where the order of the parsing really defines
> the scoping, and you (me, anyway) expect those things to be orthogonal.
>
> cheers,
>
> Miles
--
Need professional support for Eclipse Modeling?
Go visit: http://xtext.itemis.com
---
Get professional support from the Xtext committers at www.typefox.io
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02303 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
