Program comprehension techniques often explore program identifiers, to infer knowledge about programs. The relevance of source code identifiers as one relevant source of information about programs is already established in the literature, as well as their direct impact on future comprehension tasks.
Most programming languages enforce some constrains on identifiers strings (e.g., white spaces or commas are not allowed). Also, programmers often use word combinations and abbreviations, to devise strings that represent single, or multiple, domain concepts in order to increase programming linguistic efficiency (convey more semantics writing less). These strings do not always use explicit marks to distinguish the terms used (e.g., CamelCase or underscores), so techniques often referred as hard splitting are not enough.
This paper introduces Lingua::IdSplitter a dictionary based algorithm for splitting and expanding strings that compose multi-term identifiers. It explores the use of general programming and abbreviations dictionaries, but also a custom dictionary automatically generated from software natural language content, prone to include application domain terms and specific abbreviations. This approach was applied to two software packages, written in C, achieving a f-measure of around 90% for correctly splitting and expanding identifiers. A comparison with current state-of-the-art approaches is also presented.
This work is funded by National Funds through the FCT–Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within project PEst-OE/EEI/UI0752/2014.
We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable insight and detailed comments, which aided in improving this paper.
We would like to thank Latifa Guerrouj, Philippe Galinier, Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, Giuliano Antoniol, and Massimiliano Di Penta, for their work in Guerrouj et al. (2012) ,and Emily Hill, David Binkley, Dawn Lawrie, Lori Pollok and K. Vijay-Shanker for their work in Hill et al. (2013), which allowed the experimental comparison between approaches.
