[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filenaming with .yxx extensions
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: filenaming with .yxx extensions |
Date: |
28 Feb 2002 15:04:41 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) |
| On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 00:53, Paul Eggert wrote:
| > > From: Akim Demaille <address@hidden>
| > > Date: 27 Feb 2002 09:36:55 +0100
| >
| > > bison --define=foo.z -o foo.x foo.y
| >
| > This seems like it would be an adequate workaround for OpenOffice.org.
| > If they use this:
| >
| > bison -d -o .../rscyacc.yxx --defines=.../rscyacc.yxx.h rscyac.y
| >
|
| I think there is a bug if the --defines=xx is before -o it does not
| work. It breaks the same as -o alone, so I think Paul is right here.
Err? I probably don't understand your point:
/tmp/ken % ls -ltr nostromo 15:00
total 32
-rw-r--r-- 1 akim lrde 13 fév 28 15:00 foo.y
-rw-r--r-- 1 akim lrde 29367 fév 28 15:00 foo.x
-rw-r--r-- 1 akim lrde 169 fév 28 15:00 foo.h
/tmp/ken % rm foo.x foo.h nostromo 15:00
/tmp/ken % bison -o foo.x --defines=foo.h foo.y nostromo 15:01
/tmp/ken % ls -ltr nostromo 15:01
total 32
-rw-r--r-- 1 akim lrde 13 fév 28 15:00 foo.y
-rw-r--r-- 1 akim lrde 29367 fév 28 15:01 foo.x
-rw-r--r-- 1 akim lrde 169 fév 28 15:01 foo.h
| Bug number 3:
I must have lost one somewhere :)
| I understand gwen has commented as well and you are considering putting
| an error out when defines file = the output file.
More generally, that Bison must detect when it is outputting two files
under twice the same name. My problem is that I'm also thinking about
the future, where we will have more than 2 files.
| Problem with suggestion:
|
| It does not run with bison 1.28 OO baseline (try it).
I know.
| I have however supplied a 1.33 only patch but this is dependant on
| acceptance and forcing an upgrade of all developers, not pretty.
I confess that my favorite reference to prettiness is that of the
concepts, and that I'm attached to backward compatibility when moving
from it is not insignificant (which is how I'm tempted to rank the
present case). Would you say that you crucially depend upon this
``feature''?
- filenaming with .yxx extensions, Ken Foskey, 2002/02/17
- Re: filenaming with .yxx extensions, Akim Demaille, 2002/02/25
- Re: filenaming with .yxx extensions, Ken Foskey, 2002/02/25
- Re: filenaming with .yxx extensions, Akim Demaille, 2002/02/27
- Re: filenaming with .yxx extensions, Akim Demaille, 2002/02/27
- Re: filenaming with .yxx extensions, Paul Eggert, 2002/02/27
- Re: filenaming with .yxx extensions, Ken Foskey, 2002/02/28
- Re: filenaming with .yxx extensions,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: filenaming with .yxx extensions, Akim Demaille, 2002/02/28
- Re: filenaming with .yxx extensions, Paul Eggert, 2002/02/28