[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: fullyQualifiedLogicalName syntax
To provide examples, there’s no syntactic method in most languages for referencing things like method parameters, return values, or local variables within the method. In _javascript_, there’s no syntactic method for referring anonymous methods
is another. For these examples, tooling typically needs to contrive a convention when referring to them in analysis output, within a debugger or profiling tool, etc. From: Larry Golding (Comcast) <larrygolding@comcast.net>
The spec says: The format of
fullyQualifiedLogicalName
SHALL be consistent with the programming language in which the programmatic construct specified by that logical location was expressed. EXAMPLE 1: C:
create_process EXAMPLE 2: C++:
Namespace1::Class::Method(int, double) const && EXAMPLE 3: C#:
Namespace1.Class.Method(string, int[]) But we’ve talked about loosening that SHALL because you had some examples where it didn’t make sense. (I placed a comment in the change draft for #145 to remind me to take this up with you.) What’s the scenario where FQLN doesn’t match a programming language construct? Did it have to do with tools that analyzed in-memory object models rather than source code? Larry |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]