At this moment both are required and it probably will not change for a long time
DOM AST is a more complete and can be modified in runtime, unlike to compiler AST.
I suggest you use a DOM AST together with ASTRewriter (very nice class ported from JDT).
ASTRewriter use formatter internally and your SourceModules will be always formatted properly (in theory).
I thought about it for class/interface and getter/setter generator for PDT-Eg Core Plugin.
How to use ASTRewrite you can check here: https://github.com/pdt-eg/Core-Plugin/blob/master/org.pdtextensions.core.ui/src/org/pdtextensions/core/ui/contentassist/AssignToLocalCompletionProposal.java
+48 795 996 064
On 15.11.2013 23:26, Dawid PakuÅa wrote:
> One of JDT AST models contains also logic for FlowAnalysis.
> At first look PDT ASTs works like in JDT, butâ Older (JDT like) AST contains binding resolver, which using compiler AST and
> sometimes whole DLTK TI framework.
> Older AST (JDT like) is mostly used directly in UI with many utils, functions and widget ported from JDT (many of them still
> contains java/jdt keyword in comments and strings). And as I see, it is always created while using editor. He has ability to
> record his changes.
> Second AST (compiler subnamespace) its created for DLTK integration, but it also used in outline, syntax coloring etcâ This
> AST is cashed by DLTK
> Maybe will be possible to transform from one to another (by special visitor), instead of duplicating parsers.
Anyone can tell me, which AST should be use and will be developed in future? I would like to refactor class/interface wizard
(creating code based on AST models).
pdt-dev mailing list