[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Bison 1.30f

From: Hans Aberg
Subject: Re: Bison 1.30f
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:12:08 +0100

At 13:12 -0800 2001/12/10, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> Are you saying that POSIX specifies how "/" should be interpreted in a
>> C/C++ #include statement?
>Sure it does.  For example, POSIX specifies that "#include
><sys/types.h>" should work.

Well, it does not then say how "/" be interpreted, but that <sys/types.h>
should be a valid header (and thus not need to be say a file); the same as
for other C/C++ headers.

>But we are quibbling.  I don't think we should go through all GNU code,
>or even some GNU code, worrying about this.  The hosts in question are
>not of primary interest to the GNU project and are obsolescent to boot.

The thing is that there are some old such header names such as
<sys/types.h>, and it is not wise to create new such ones for which the
interpretation might be uncertain. So, for GNU code, the wisest is to stick
to standard header names, and not adding new ones.

>> BTW, should not really bison.simple be named simple.bison, following the
>> common usage for filename extensions? (That is, it is a file to the Bison
>> skeleton language.)
>Perhaps, but I wouldn't change the name now; it's not worth the hassle.

I think it about the change in the context of adding for support for more
output languages. -- Then the skeleton files one will switch between, will
in effect different source files.

  Hans Aberg

reply via email to

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