harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Preprocessor
Date Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:56:36 GMT


Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> Mikhail Fursov wrote:
>>>> Yes, the main reason I love Java is a power of tools! If you force me to
>>>> work in notepad instead of IDEA with the only reason that we need a
>>>> preprocessor I will have a doubt if the solution is reasonable.
>>> Agreed. And that is a reason why it makes sense to have the original
>>> source code compilable (as Etienne raised) -- so basic Java tooling can
>>> still work on the original code even when there are no pre-processor
>>> helpers around (though of course that would be more painful for the
>>> developer).
>>>
>> But I'm confused here - I thought we talked about
>>
>>    code w/ preprocessor statements -> processed code -> jar
>>
>> as three separate steps, so the code would be able to work with basic
>> java tooling if you assembled a src.jar from the processed code.
> 
> Right, but you (Mr Harmony developer) don't modify the 'processed code',
> you work in the 'code w/ preprocessor statements', so you probably want
> the code you are modifying to be real, compilable Java code too.
> 

Agreed, but I was thinking though about "Mrs Java developer"

> It doesn't have to be that way of course.  If you were really nuts you
> could invent your own crazy language that was pre-processed into Java
> source (any analogy with early C++ preprocessors and ANSI C is purely
> coincidental<g>).

No thanks :)

> 
> However, assuming you want the code you modify to be basically Java, you
> might as well make it real Java.  It then makes sense for it to be valid
> as Big Java (SE), and existing editors can be used on it without the
> preprocessor as a poor-man's Harmony IDE.

Agreed this is ideal.  So what are the options?

geir

> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 

Mime
View raw message