openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan iversen <>
Subject Re: [early codereview / check for standards] genLang in l10ntools
Date Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:12:29 GMT

Thanks for your input, it is not too harsh, I prefer straight comments than
something I have to read several times to understand.

I will not disturb your session, but I have put some reasons/answers below.

Jan I.

On 6 November 2012 14:38, Andre Fischer <> wrote:

> On 11/4/12 1:55 PM, jan iversen wrote:
>> Hi.
>> I have finished the control part of the new localization tool, and before
>> I walk further down the line (writing/converting all the translations
>> parts) I would like to have checked if the code is ok in terms of standard,
>> readability and expectations (from other C++ programmers).
>> I hope one of the C++ programmers, can have a quick look at the code and
>> tell me:
>> - Are the code written in accordance with the AOO standards (I think so)
>> - Is it in general in accordance with the AOO writing style.
> - C++ files usually have file extensions of .cxx and .hxx
> - There are some conventions of naming variables like mnSomthing for a
> numerical member variable.
> I can live with you using a different naming scheme but would ask to
> change the file extensions.

I will change the extensions, no problem...I use hungarian notation for
variables, and I know that some system require e.g. int variable to start
with a lower case "i", something I am not to much friend of, because it
gets very cluttered when you make your own classes.

>> Of course, I would very much like to hear if there are non-efficient /
>> malicious code in there, but please remember this is only the control
>> skeleton, so there are a lot of code missing.
> I only found one thing:
> genConvert.cpp  convert_gen::getConverter
> - There are two if statements at the start of the method.  The second
> looks like it should be a "else if" instead.
UPS, corrected.

> - The return at the bottom looks unreachable.
The return is actually just to please the compiler, it cannot be
reached...but try to remove the statement and you get errors.

> But the main thing that I am not sure about is whether C++ is the right
> language for this.  I am not sure because I have not found the interesting
> part of the program: how the file tree is traversed, how external tools are
> called, or whether there are not external tools anymore.
> If the main task of genLang is to traverse the file tree and call external
> tools, then a script language like Perl might be better suited and would
> speed up implementation a lot.

No, there will be no external tools...all will be embedded in genLang, I am
right now embedding transex3 (which is a lex grammar), each conversion is
done as its own class, making it easy to expand.

Localize_sl, spawns today different processes, written in C++, Lex, bash,
python and bash....that is not maintainable, making it with classes as one
program in C++ makes it easier to maintain.

I have done some speed test (based on some input I got on localize_sl). On
windows localize_sl takes about 2 minutes to complete "sw" directory,
mainly due to spawning a new process for each file. My preliminary test
makes me believe that genLang will do the same in less than 10 seconds.

>> I try to include a zip file with this mail, should I not succeed, then
>> please respond to the mail and I will sent it directly.
> If the above sounds too harsh, then that is because I am currently sitting
> in the BoF seesion and am trying to concentrate on two things at the same
> time.
THANKS for taking time, have a nice session.

I have on the other hand been searching for unit test tools, it seems we
are not really using biggest fear is to build something (of
course with high reuse of source) without being able to guarantee that the
output is identical to the old process.

> -Andre
>> MANY Thanks in advance for the help.
>> Jan.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message