Migrate to JMLtk - #3966
Conversation
|
Squash before merge |
It is still a regression, as the reported token is now "int" and not "=" as before.
|
Improved the position recording slightly. But the parser now reports "int" as last successfull token and no longer "=", so the position is no longer as precise as before where the dialog underlined the empty space after '=' |
|
Sorry my fault, restored to open. First pushed to the wrong branch due to a typo jmtk and then deleted the correct one.... |
|
The question is rather: Can we get rid of the stupid ghost and model modifier on Java-level? Correctly, it should be |
I assume you mean |
unp1
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot. Fine from my side. Only question if you want to have a second review from someone else in addition.
We need to have a discussion on the needed In JMLtk, I have the syntax Allowing JML in Taclets would now allow writing Taclets specific to ghost code, i.e., appropriate handling of exceptions (WD problem). All in all, |
Intended Change
With this PR,
wadoon/key-javaparserbecomes obsolete in favour of the JMLtk fork!This PR does not
Regressions:
ExpressionStmt(int x = ;)Changes to
key-javaparser/*@ ghost */ int x;)KeyRangeExpressiongoneKeyMarkerStatementgoneXStatementvs.XStmt)Plan
Things to do after review:
decide when to make JMLtk first release
Kcounter on JMLtkdiscuss sacrifices in JMLtk for KeY compat:
/*@ghost*/ int #x;vs.ghost int #x;How to proceed further with exchanging JML parsing
Type of pull request
Ensuring quality