AutoHotkey Homepage AutoHotkey Community
Let's help each other out
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

(editor-independent) function list, find function definition

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AutoHotkey Community Forum Index -> Wish List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
urlwolf



Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 100
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:03 pm    Post subject: (editor-independent) function list, find function definition Reply with quote
This is my plea for ctags supporting ahk.
I have posted about it before, but I have reworded it here and make it evident why we may need it.

Let's face it, ahk is no longer used to do short scripts and little hacks. Many people here are plowning through 1000's of lines of code.

examples:
BBcode editor has this structure:
main.ahk
functions.ahk
hotkeys.ahk
BBCodeEditor.ahk
BBCodePreview.ahk

Would you like to 'teleport' just doubleclicking on a funciton in the file 'main' to where it's defined in 'functions'?
Me too.

Sometimes all functions you care for are on a single file, but it's a pain to move back and forth between them. An example of this is Isense.

There are many libraries out there, and the use of #include is more and more common.

So finding where a function is defined quickly and coming back to where you were is really important.

Let's recap:

    Scripts are getting longer
    People started sharing libraries and most scripts have #includes
    People spend more time reading code written by others


These situations make the use of tags a very wise decision.

NOTE: there's a pure ahk implementation of this idea for notepad++ without using tags by Xander. It is still only for Notepad++, and not very sophisticated: it won't work for variables for example. It's a quick and dirty "open declaration" script, ctags would be the real thing.

Now, this won't be any good if your editor doesn't understand ctags.
But there are many editors that support ctags.

Notepad++,Crimson Editor, EditPlus or UltraEdit:
http://openctags.sourceforge.net/
Quote:

OpenCTags will help you when you write code in big projects and you need a quick reference to keywords (classes, variables, structures, #define) in your project. It may be used as an autocomplete feature or to navigate throw your sources to reach the definition of your keyword. It keeps navigation history so you can easily go back and forth throw your code


PSPad seems not interested in implementing them.

Of course all the big ones, slickEdit, mutiEdit2006, vim, emacs, etc support ctags.

Jedit does it too.

What to do next


Someone needs to write a parser for ahk. I'm not sure I'm the best for the job, since last time I used C was 10 years ago, plus there are people in this community who have written parsers/lexers for ahk (savage, PhilLho) and may have an easy time doing this job while I may struggle.

Here's a very interesting post on how the actionscript community got support for its unsupported language.

looks like it's just a matter of adding a few regexps to a parser in c, an recompile;

Code:

/*
*   INCLUDE FILES
*/
#include "general.h"   /* must always come first */
#include "parse.h"

/*
*   FUNCTION DEFINITIONS
*
*/

static void installActionScriptRegex (const langType language)
{
   // Functions
    addTagRegex (language, "^[ \t]*[(private|public|static|protected|internal|final|override)( \t)]*function[ \t]+([A-Za-z0-9_]+)[ \t]*\\(([^\\{]*)",
       "\\1 (\\2", "f,function,functions,methods", NULL);

   // Getters and setters
   addTagRegex (language, "^[ \t]*[(public|static|internal|final|override)( \t)]*function[ \t]+(set|get)[ \t]+([A-Za-z0-9_]+)[ \t]*\\(",
      "\\1 \\2", "p,property,properties", NULL);

   // Variables
   addTagRegex (language, "^[ \t]*[(private|public|static|protected|internal)( \t)]*var[ \t]+([A-Za-z0-9_]+)([ \t]*\\:[ \t]*([A-Za-z0-9_]+))*[ \t]*",
      "\\1 : \\3", "v,variable,variables", NULL);

   // Constants
   addTagRegex (language, "^[ \t]*[(private|public|static|protected|internal)( \t)]*const[ \t]+([A-Za-z0-9_]+)([ \t]*\\:[ \t]*([A-Za-z0-9_]+))*[ \t]*",
      "\\1 : \\3", "v,variable,variables", NULL);

   // Classes
   addTagRegex (language, "^[ \t]*[(private|public|static|dynamic|final|internal)( \t)]*class[ \t]+([A-Za-z0-9_]+)[ \t]*([^\\{]*)",
      "\\1 (\\2)", "c,class,classes", NULL);

   // Interfaces
   addTagRegex (language, "^[ \t]*[(private|public|static|dynamic|final|internal)( \t)]*interface[ \t]+([A-Za-z0-9_]+)[ \t]*([^\\{]*)",
      "\\1 (\\2)", "i,interface,interfaces", NULL);

   // Packages
   addTagRegex (language, "^[ \t]*[(private|public|static)( \t)]*package[ \t]+([A-Za-z0-9_.]+)[ \t]*",
      "\\1", "p,package", NULL);

   // Notes
   addTagRegex (language, "\\/\\/[ \t]*(NOTE|note|Note)[ \t]*\\:*(.*)",
      "\\2", "i,{Notes}", NULL);

   // Todos
   addTagRegex (language, "\\/\\/[ \t]*(TODO|todo|ToDo|Todo)[ \t]*\\:*(.*)",
      "\\2", "i,{To do}", NULL);

   // Prototypes (Put this in for AS1 compatibility...)
    addTagRegex (language, ".*\\.prototype\\.([A-Za-z0-9 ]+)[ \t]*\\=([ \t]*)function( [ \t]?)*\\(",
       "\\1", "p,prototype", NULL);

}

/* Create parser definition stucture */


extern parserDefinition* ActionScriptParser (void)

{
    static const char *const extensions [] = { "as", NULL };
    parserDefinition *const def = parserNew ("ActionScript");
    def->extensions = extensions;
    def->initialize = installActionScriptRegex;
    def->regex      = TRUE;
    return def;
}


That is... I we have the regexps for ahk, it's just trivial to recompile ctags and make it work with ahk!
The only thing that worries me is that it seems that ahk is a hard to parse language. For example:
AHK can use comma as a parameter delimiter, as expression delimeter and as command delimiter.
This might be trouble, but nothing the people doing lexers haven't faced before.

What do you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tuncay



Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 383
Location: Berlin
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Would this work with the stdlib without any #Include directive?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
urlwolf



Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 100
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tuncay wrote:
Would this work with the stdlib without any #Include directive?


You have all the source in the site. What'd be the point of removing includes?

Update: there's a way to make ctags work for ahk without recompile. You just add the regex in a config file!

I'm working on this, I'll have my first crappy version soon, then we can refine them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tuncay



Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 383
Location: Berlin
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
What'd be the point of removing includes?

Iīve did not mean to remove any #Include directive. May be you arenīt familiar with the standard library feature where #include directives are not needed? http://www.autohotkey.com/docs/Functions.htm#lib
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
urlwolf



Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 100
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
oh I see. These are not ahk #includes, but c #includes. it was a chunck of c code.

The c code is not vinculates to ahk in any way: it's ctags' code. Ctags is a command line utility that generates the tags.

Still, it looks like you can avoid recompile by adding the ahk-specific regular expressions in the config file ctags.cnf.

Example:
Quote:
--langdef=autohotkey
--langmap=autohotkey:.ahk
--regex-autohotkey=/^def[ \t]*([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)/\1/d,definition/
--regex-autohotkey=/(^[a-zA-Z0-9_]+\\:\s*$)/\1/l,label/

I just added a very simple construct (def) to test that the regex works. Of course def is not part of the autohotkey language, but it's easy to parse.

So I have a def foo at the beginning of the ahk file just to make sure at least that is parsed, then I play with the actual ahk constructs.

Note, the function regex doesn't work. I'm playing with these right now. If anyone knows a good regex to detect functions, please let me know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok, getting there:

Code:
--langdef=autohotkey
--langmap=autohotkey:.ahk
--regex-autohotkey=/(^[ \t]*[a-zA-Z0-9_]+)\:\s*$/\1/l,label/
--regex-autohotkey=/(^[ \t]*[a-zA-Z0-9_]+)[:space:]*\:\=/\1/v,variable/
--regex-autohotkey=/^[ \t]*(NOTE|note|Note)[ \t]*\\:*(.*)/n,note/
--regex-autohotkey=/^[ \t]*([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)[ \t]*\(\)[:space:]*\\{/\1/s,function/


This one gets labels, and vars only when using the := operator to assign them.

The problem is that the comparison operator used in conditionals is the same as the assignment operator (=),so there's ambiguity.

I need to work on the function regex so it matches any number of paramters - currently only () is matched.

I'm sure I'm reinventing the wheel here... these regex must be here in the forums somewhere.

I have looked at Toralf/rajat actove goto. the problem is that in this ctags.cfg we need to get it right with a single line. It's also POSIX regex, a different flavor.

I'm getting there.[/code]
Back to top
urlwolf



Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 100
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
NOTE:
The final thread for this is:
http://www.autohotkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=169833

fully working implementation, an example using vim, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AutoHotkey Community Forum Index -> Wish List All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group