[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bison and i18n

From: Stepan Kasal
Subject: Re: bison and i18n
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 21:03:33 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i


On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 08:39:51AM +0200, Tim Van Holder wrote:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to use a bison-runtime domain instead of an
> application-bison one?  It might need to be versioned (e.g.
> bison-runtime-2.0), but having a copy for each app that uses bison seems
> excessive.

well, the bison-generated *.c file is distributed.  That implies that
you use many versions of bison on your computer, each tarball brings
its own version.  So you wouldn't save that much.

And the bison-runtime-2.0 scheme would confuse packaging systems of

> It's unfortunate that bison doesn't have any user-side installation at
> the moment; it's much easier for the dcgettext model to be used for
> libraries, as the .mo files can just be installed along with the .a/.so.

You might be right.  The parser could be a shared lib, and when
you'd call   bison --libison,  you'd get a *.c file which would define
a big data structure, all the code from *.y file glued together with
a very small amount of code.

The configure script could then look for installed bison + libison,
and if it would find it, it would throw away the distributed *.c file
and regenerate it with  bison --libison .

Nice dream.  Do you have capacities to give it a try?

Have a nice day,

reply via email to

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