[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:51:35 -0500 (EST) |
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> > And how many more specialized macros will someone end up writing for
> > %define? Something like m4_n? m4_ifvaln? m4_ifset? m4_bmatch?
> > m4_bpatsubsts?
>
> If you need m4_n, m4_bmatch, m4_bpatsubsts on define value, there are bigger
> problems in your skeleton. `if' statements are a different thing.
I'm not sure that's true. For example, at some point the C/C++ skeletons
should compute cpp guards rather than using the same ones for all parsers.
I haven't explored this thoroughly, but it could involve using
m4_bpatsubsts to change the capitalization of a %define variable value
(such as parser_class_name's) to look like a cpp macro name.
In any case, I sense that your main reason for wanting these extra wrapper
macros is brevity. As a compromise, let's leave those macros out, and
let's change these:
b4_percent_define_
b4_percent_code_
to these:
b4_pdefine_
b4_pcode_
What do you think?
- [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/01/16
- Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation, Joel E. Denny, 2007/01/17
- Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/01/17
- Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation, Joel E. Denny, 2007/01/17
- Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/01/17
- Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/01/17
- Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation, Joel E. Denny, 2007/01/17
- Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/01/17
- Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation, Joel E. Denny, 2007/01/17
- Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/01/18
- Re: [PATCH] More %define/%code encapsulation,
Joel E. Denny <=