Re: [incquery-dev] QE "attach" feature, bugzilla email storm

[Istvan Rath <rath@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In the original sense of your suggestion, are there any type provider-related issues that we can _realistically_ address within 0.8?

This type provider seems to be a major source of headache, as the performance-related problems seem to stem from here too, see my comments on https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=428015.

Is this also related to Xtext version changes? I.e. does our decision to support 2.4/2.5 for 0.8 have any influence on this?


On 08 Apr 2014, at 10:29, Ujhelyi Zoltán <ujhelyiz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> we are talking about the following issues:
> 
> * 419114: Ambiguous variable type definitions: error even on internal variables, https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=419114
>  * Quite complex issue, needs checking all possible cases
> * 412972: parameter type is incorrect in generated code, https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=412972
>  * Needs a full restructuring of the type provider; no test case available; depends on pattern ordering :(
> * 410823: Method parameters in Matcher generated based on inconsistent type warning, https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=410823
>  * Similar to previous; a bit more important, but basically the same issue
> * 404652: Wrong type parameter in the generated evaluateXExpression() method for EJavaClass<T>, https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=404652
>  * Only appears when using generics in the EMF metamodel
> 
> Three of them relates to ambiguous type definitions; they are very bad, but very complex issues. Basically, all three should be solved together, but it would require a large effort. Sadly, I am reasonably sure, I won't have time for this, although they can be really problematic issues.
> 
> The fourth is an easier decision: if we do not support EMF generics, it can be avoided.
> 
> Cheers,
> Zoli
> -- Zoltán Ujhelyi
> https://www.inf.mit.bme.hu/en/members/ujhelyiz
> 
> Fault Tolerant Systems Research Group
> Budapest University of Technology and Economics
> 
> On 2014.04.03., at 20:51, Istvan Rath <rath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 03 Apr 2014, at 20:46, Ujhelyi Zoltán <ujhelyiz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> On the other hand, this means, we should focus only on critical type inference issues in 0.8, and push forward the other ones. Of course, what is critical, is more-or-less open to interpretation.
>> 
>> I generally agree, can you identify the ones that you consider critical? The rest should be pushed to the Future.
>> 
>> thanks
>> Istvan
>> 
>> Istvan Rath, PhD
>> Research Fellow
>> Fault Tolerant Systems Research Group
>> Budapest University of Technology and Economics
>> rath@xxxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> incquery-dev mailing list
>> incquery-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incquery-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> incquery-dev mailing list
> incquery-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incquery-dev

Istvan Rath, PhD
Research Fellow
Fault Tolerant Systems Research Group
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
rath@xxxxxxxxxx