[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation

From: Joel E. Denny
Subject: Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:32:39 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> > I fail to see how this:
> > 
> >   b4_get_percent_code_ifval([[package]], [.])
> > 
> > is better than this:
> > 
> >   m4_ifval(b4_percent_code_get([[package]]), [.])
> For one thing, it's an exception to the rule that m4 macros almost always
> accept quoted material.

Macros in the m4_ namespace frequently break that rule.  Bison skeleton 
authors are going to need to understand that anyway.  I see no reason to 
hide this fact in this one case.  It's more to learn not less.

> > If we try to specialize every m4_FOO for every Bison construct, we're going
> > to gradually create a large mess in bison.m4.  
> There is no other Bison construct to specialize for.

Not yet, but why start the trend?  And how many more specialized macros 
will someone end up writing for %define?  Something like m4_n?  
m4_ifvaln?  m4_ifset?  m4_bmatch?  m4_bpatsubsts?

> > Since none of this appears to be documented, why don't we just drop the
> > no-value form?
> I kind of like `%define public', much more than `%define public "true"'.  So I
> think it'd be a pity to remove it, but on the other hand I have no big
> objections.  However, I would like to hear from Akim since he introduced it
> last July.

Yes, I would also like his opinion.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]