Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Thoughts on LSP / Clangd integration

I’ve been working on a new editor for Momentics and was looking at our ASTRewriting and how we leverage the LTK refactoring engine to present a nice UI, bundles changes into a single undoable edit, etc. Along with Codan (which still has a lot of unfulfilled promise) and a super fast (relatively) indexer, the bar is set pretty high for something else to come along and replace our static analysis engine.

 

Assuming clangd will give us everything we need to replace our parsers and services that use them, it would be good to have a way to track it’s progress and start integrating it for real. Despite the thinking of certain people, CDT ain’t going anywhere for quite a while J, and this would help cement that.

 

Without looking too deeply yet, my gut tells me it may actually be less work to start a new editor. The CEditor is a million years old and is getting rusty. I’m not totally sold that the generic editor is easier, but that’s worth another look. I didn’t use it for my Momentics build file editor since I couldn’t see how it did document partitioning. There is some elegance to the Platform editor framework that shouldn’t be hidden. Once I finish my editor, I’ll take a look at this.

 

Doug.

 

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc-André Laperle
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 12:26 AM
To: CDT Mailing List <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Thoughts on LSP / Clangd integration

 

> Not even once LSP4E and Clangd mature a bit and become more featureful?

 

I meant, at this moment, there's probably too many missing things compared to CDT for someone to choose the generic editor over CDT's so I think it will be more useful for people interested in Clangd itself. But yeah, if both LSP4E and Clangd mature then I can definitely see situations where users would prefer the Generic editor + Clangd. You can already get very accurate diagnostics with the right setup so it's promising.

 

Marc-André


From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Nathan Ridge <zeratul976@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 8:16:47 PM
To: CDT Mailing List
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Thoughts on LSP / Clangd integration

 

> I don't expect anyone to use this except for tinkering with Clangd unless someone
> spends (much more) time on #4.

Not even once LSP4E and Clangd mature a bit and become more featureful?

Regards,
Nate
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev


Back to the top