* Added support for multi-line comments to the JLPPegParser grammar
implementation.
* Added a Java sample file.
* Updated test script to add convenience functions for the java test file and
for using a TracingParseRunner for parse runs.
* Added an option, `--css-file`, to allow the caller to specify their own css
file.
* Added basic logic to the Processor class to detect source file types and build
a parser and a generator for that source type. Support currently exists for
the following languages: C (.c, .h), C++ (.cpp, .c++, .hpp, .h++), Erlang
(.erl), Groovy (.groovy), Java (.java), JavaScript (.js).
Ideas:
* For literate output, format like Docco, tables like
Doc | Code
-----------|------------
| docblock | codeblock |
| docblock | codeblock |
| docblock | codeblock |
* For javadoc output, maybe create a running 'pure source' object containing
just the code lines. Then run an sup-parser for the language the code is
written in and build a seperate AST for the code. This code AST then gets
tagged onto the overall AST and is used in the generation phase for code
comprehension. Would still need a way to map doc blocks to code blocks. I
could probably use line numbers. In that case I would need to map the original
source line from the commented input to the 'pure source' while processing the
'pure source' and store the original line number in the code AST. That would
give me a reliable way to lookup the closest code structure to a doc block.
* The code AST would need to made of generic pieces if I want to have
language-agnostic generator code. What may be better is to allow the language
parser to create it's code AST however is wants and just have some pluggable
bit of the generator for each language. Would increase generator code
complexity though.
* Added planning documentation regrding the process.
* Updated grammer.
* Refactored the test code a bit.
* Added sample input file from vbs-suite
* Refactored the AST node structure created by the parser.
