Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration

[Joel E. Denny]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> 
> > I'd still like to drop the ".tab".  As long as we say %language is
> > experimental, we can change our minds later if it causes trouble.
> 
> I think this would complicate a bit the patch, because I wouldn't be able to
> use valid_languages[0] as the default.

I think you could.  Just ignore add_tab if language_prio < 2.  But....

> I'd rather leave this for later,
> possibly for when we implement the language.m4 idea

That's fine.

> > What if we merge the valid_languages table (appearing in src/getargs.c) with
> > data/c++-skel.m4 and data/c-skel.m4 to produce a single data/language.m4?
> > This kind of single config script for %language would make it easier for
> > users and developers to add support for new languages and skeletons without
> > rebuilding Bison.  I think it would also simplify your patch and reduce
> > %language's footprint in the Bison front-end source. 
> 
> This I'm not sure, but the idea is worth giving a whirl...

Great.

> > What do you think?
> 
> ... however, I'd rather do this later, because I see this as a cleanup.

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
> also need some time to digest your latest @output patch (which would ease the
> implementation too)

Yep.

> and to see how this idea would interact with %skeleton,
> then I'll come back.

That's fine.