Re: bison and i18n

[Stepan Kasal]

Hello,

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
distributions.

> 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,
        Stepan