[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: PATCH: make sub-includes easier with custom skeletons

From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: PATCH: make sub-includes easier with custom skeletons
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:46:10 +0200

Hi Antony,

> Le 3 juil. 2022 à 23:15, Anthony Heading <ajrh@ajrh.net> a écrit :
> Another patch I've had lying around for a while...   It's easy to use a 
> custom skeleton, just by using the '-S <skeleton>' flag.   But it's harder to 
> customize their sub-includes because they have fixed paths, for example in 
> lalr1.cc:
> m4_include(b4_skeletonsdir/[c++.m4])
> Attached patch sets the directory of any custom skeleton, and then the 
> b4_skeletonsdir,  as '-I' search-path flags to m4, and makes the c++.m4 
> include path unqualified.
> If it makes sense for adoption,  I can change all the various other system 
> skeleton files similarly and submit a larger patch as github PR,  but 
> hopefully attached (which is all I personally use) is enough to explain the 
> idea.

Could you elaborate a bit your use case?

Are you using a regular lalr1.cc but a tuned c++.m4?

I'm not sure I want to support that: Bison's lalr1.cc wants its own c++.m4, etc.

However I can understand that when you add -Smyskeletons/lalr1.cc, then you 
want lalr1.cc to be free to depend on other files in myskeletons/.  However, 
instead of hard-coding this automatic -I on the base name of -S, I would rather 
truly introduce -I and let the user decide what to use.

With your -S, myskeletons/lalr1.cc would have to include `c++.m4`.  I think it 
should include `myskeletons/lalr1.cc`.  That's why I would prefer -I: the user 
decides what the root is.

reply via email to

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