[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:28:55 -0500 (EST) |
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> > I was hoping that it would simplify your patch significantly, and then Paul
> > Eggert might be more inclined to review it before you commit it. I find it
> > hard to understand a series of successively applied patches where a later
> > one significantly rewrites the logic of an earlier one.
>
> I think such a patch would rewrite your output filename logic as much as it
> would rewrite the %language logic. So... :-)
By "*your* output filename logic", are you referring specifically to one
of my recent patches (which I wrote with the language.m4 idea in mind)?
Or are you referring to Bison's existing logic for computing output file
names?
> Can I commit the attached patch,
I'd rather Paul decided that.
> which implements the @value{VERSION} idea (a
> pretty good one!)? I also rephrased the documentation to never mention the
> next version, and to document %language's case-insensitivity, and the
> comparison of %skeleton and %language where they really belong.
Thanks.
Other than the point about whether %language is experimental, I agree with
Paul's suggestions.
I still think the C++ documentation should cross-reference the %language
documentation.
The index documents Appendix A (which is sometimes called "Table of
Symbols" and sometimes called "Bison Symbols") as:
* Table of Symbols:: All the keywords of the Bison language are explained.
Thus, I think it should contain %language and %skeleton. Why we duplicate
so much documentation in "Bison Declaration Summary" (which your ChangeLog
entry incorrectly calls "Directives"), I don't know. Maybe Paul has a
better sense of this.
Your ChangeLog entry says "Command line" where you apparently mean "Bison
Options".
Is there a reason why @value{VERSION} handling in extexi needs to be
specific to %require? It might prove useful in other contexts.
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, (continued)
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/12/15
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/15
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/12/16
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/16
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/12/17
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/18
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/12/18
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paul Eggert, 2006/12/18
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/18
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/18
- Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration,
Joel E. Denny <=
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paul Eggert, 2006/12/18
- Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/18
- Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/12/19
- Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/19
- Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paul Eggert, 2006/12/19