bison-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: preparing for 2.3b


From: Joel E. Denny
Subject: Re: preparing for 2.3b
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 19:49:26 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Akim Demaille wrote:

> >>> "JED" == Joel E Denny <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>  > 2. The "Option Cross Key" section says -g and -x take an optional FILE 
>  > argument, but they don't.
> 
> They should, to match the behavior of the long option.

I agree.

>  > It indicates that the -o argument is optional, but it's not.  There
>  > may be other instances of each case that I didn't notice.
> 
> I addressed both issues here.

Thanks for doing this.

> There is also -d which takes no
> argument, although the long option does :(  I'd prefer that short and
> long options have the same behavior, at least to avoid lying when we
> state
> 
>         Mandatory arguments to long options are mandatory for short
>         options too.
> 
> but I guess POSIX will make trouble?  And anyway, this is likely to
> break existing Makefiles :(

It seems like we're stuck with this one exception.  Maybe we should add 
the statement:

  The same is true for optional arguments with one exception: unlike 
  --defines, -d cannot take an argument since POSIX Yacc requires that -d 
  can be bundled with other short options.

This would at least help future developers know the scheme we're trying to 
follow.  It might help users remember how the options go as well. 
Overkill?





reply via email to

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