Having a good, open-source C++ parser library that could support such tools would be wonderful. However, I am going to be a stick-in-the-mud and propose that we already have such a library. Clang: I strongly encourage you not to begin yet another open-source C++ parser. Before I started this project two years ago, I obviously checked whether there was any similar C++ source code analysis library
[1] Scalpel appears to be under an LGPL license, which is not Boost-compatible. In the beginning, Scalpel was under GPL. Hartmut Kaiser, Joel de Guzman and some fellows of mine convinced me to switch under a more
Hi Doug, On 09/03/2010 05:04 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: project. However, I didn't find anything. In the meantime, I did discover the existence of Clang, but I already spent a lot of time working on Scalpel. I must confess it was a pretty bad news for me, but I've decided to carry on in spite of it. After all, compared with the G++ front-end, Clang is yet another open-source C++ parser as well. Similarly, LLVM is yet another open-source compiler compared with GCC, ArchLinux is yet another GNU/Linux distro compared with Debian, and so on. All competition is stimulating. It's beneficial for everyone. All competitors are different from each other and aim to bring a surplus value. As I said, Scalpel brings high homogeneity with Boost. It has its own unique design and I also plan to endow it with round-trip engineering capabilities. I've been working on Scalpel for two years and I strongly intend to complete it. Even more so, I encourage developers to contribute to the open-source software's diversity! liberal software license. Then, I've switched to LGPL. If one day Scalpel is accepted into Boost, I'll release it under the BSL without any hesitation.