Re: Language Versions

[Arthur Schwarz]

Hi;

> This is no more than a single line in the document and/or part of --help. It 
> tells your audience what compilers they can use and what language elements are 
> available. All with a single line.

No can do.  That's something related to the skeletons.  So I will complete 
their documentation, yes.


This puzzles me. You can't put a single line in for each language 
telling the user what the baseline language is? I don't believe this has 
anything to do with the skeletons, unless the skeletons are linked to a 
different language, and in this case the baseline language is the 
language version for the skeleton. I am truly mystified. You have 
already said what the Bison language version choices are (see below), 
what is being asked for is that  you include them in the manual. 
Something like, "Bison output is compilable using version C(), C++(), 
and D()", where the language version used is inserted in the "()". You 
might need to use prettier words but the sense is that you know the 
answer, and the user's of Bison should know it also.

Perpetually Confused;
art

On 9/9/2022 11:52 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:
> Hi Arthur,
>
> > Le 6 sept. 2022 à 23:05, Arthur Schwarz <home@slipbits.com> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Akim;
> >
> > I do mean the version of C/C++/D/Java should be stated.
> It does make sense.
>
> > For example int he C case there is the K & R version.
> We aim at C90.  KnR support was dropped long ago:
>
> > * Noteworthy changes in release 2.6 (2012-07-19) [stable]
> >
> > ** Future changes
> >
> >    The next major release of Bison will drop support for the following
> >    deprecated features.  Please report disagreements to bug-bison@gnu.org.
> >
> > *** K&R C parsers
> >
> >    Support for generating parsers in K&R C will be removed.  Parsers
> >    generated for C support ISO C90, and are tested with ISO C99 and ISO C11
> >    compilers.
> And I can't remember anyone complaining about that.
>
> > Is this the relatively old version you mean. For C++ do  you mean C++98, C++03, 
> > C++11?
> My first sentence was unclear, but contained the answer: C++98.  And compatible 
> with more recent versions of the language. At some point I suppose we will be 
> able to drop C++03 and require at least C++11, but there's no urge for this.
>
> > All of these are relatively old.I expect that D and Java have the same 
> > uncertainty.
> >
> > That you use relatively old versions is meaningless because you haven't 
> > specified the version. And suppose that the version baseline changes, and code 
> > generated from prior versions are deprecated, or more insidious, the semantics 
> > are altered. You've provided no guidance.
> What are you exactly referring to here?  I am not aware of any case where the 
> semantics are actually altered.
>
> I do agree the skeletons should specific their language requirements, you are 
> absolutely right.  But I dispute that changing the target language version 
> (e.g. KnR to C90) ever changed some semantics.  It certainly broke builds for 
> people who were still using KnR C in 2012, but it did not alter semantics in 
> practice.
>
>
> > This is no more than a single line in the document and/or part of --help. It 
> > tells your audience what compilers they can use and what language elements are 
> > available. All with a single line.
> No can do.  That's something related to the skeletons.  So I will complete 
> their documentation, yes.
>
> Cheers!