[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: preparing for 2.3b
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: preparing for 2.3b |
Date: |
Sat, 8 Mar 2008 14:44:23 -0500 (EST) |
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> Le 7 mars 08 à 01:24, Joel E. Denny a écrit :
>
> > But should we reserve -D just in case we ever want it to do something like
> > gcc's -D? I don't know.
>
> If we do, we can use VAR=VALUE like Make. Otherwise, we
> can use -H, like --header? --defines is really a bit
> meaningless. And --header might also be too C/C++
> centric, maybe --declaration, or --interface.
I agree that --defines is not the best name.
Maybe I can just drop -D from my patch but leave --defines and -d as
separate options. Then we can release 2.3b and figure this issue out
afterwards. Does that work for you?
- Re: preparing for 2.3b, Joel E. Denny, 2008/03/05
- Re: preparing for 2.3b, Joel E. Denny, 2008/03/05
- Re: preparing for 2.3b, Akim Demaille, 2008/03/06
- Re: preparing for 2.3b, Joel E. Denny, 2008/03/06
- Re: preparing for 2.3b, Akim Demaille, 2008/03/08
- Re: preparing for 2.3b,
Joel E. Denny <=
- Re: preparing for 2.3b, Joel E. Denny, 2008/03/08
- Re: preparing for 2.3b, Akim Demaille, 2008/03/10
- Re: preparing for 2.3b, Joel E. Denny, 2008/03/10
- Re: preparing for 2.3b, Joel E. Denny, 2008/03/12
- Re: preparing for 2.3b, Akim Demaille, 2008/03/12
Re: preparing for 2.3b, Akim Demaille, 2008/03/06