[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:43:27 -0500 (EST) |
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Joel E. Denny wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Paul Eggert wrote:
> >
> > > Seriously, though, this business about "experimental" is kind of
> > > demoralizing for users who are reading the manual. Why should they
> > > invest their work in an "experimental" feature?
> >
> > The C++ skeletons and %destructor seemed to do okay this way, but I don't
> > know the full history there.
>
> Yes, but I also think that we should not exaggerate.
Exaggerate what? That they did okay? Or the instability of our current
directives?
> Personally, I would not label as experimental even the requires/provides part
> (though I do find it a bit unnerving that we need %code-top...), as well as
> %language.
If I had to choose only one new feature to label as experimental, it's the
prologue alternatives because they keep evolving. After my recent
discussion with Hans Aberg and Jeff Inman, I have yet another revision for
them. (I'm thinking it'll ease all the concerns I've heard so far...
including the dislike for %code-top that even I feel. However, I'm
putting that off until the other current issues settle down.)
Anyway, I just don't see the harm in labeling things experimental in a
test release. And I believe we do need at least one test release before
the next stable release.
> If it wasn't for the language conventions, I would have kept the ".tab" even
> in the Java output, as I don't like to depart too much from the traditional
> Bison behavior.
My feeling is that the community has already departed... look at Bison's
own parse-gram.c and parse-gram.h.
- Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, (continued)
- Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/12/13
- Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/13
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/12/14
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paul Eggert, 2006/12/14
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/14
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paul Eggert, 2006/12/14
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/14
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paul Eggert, 2006/12/15
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/15
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/12/15
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration,
Joel E. Denny <=
- 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, 2006/12/14
- Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration, Paul Eggert, 2006/12/18