Re: wishes for lout

[Valeriy E. Ushakov]

On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 12:21:54PM +0100, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:

> 1) I think that all internal files used by lout should be overiddable
> at a command option. In particular, I think that the default name
> lout.li should be overriddable.

This will probably cause more grief than solve problems.  Why do you
need this?


> 2) I would like that Lout could -at command option- parse line
> numbering comments Ю la cpp. So Lout would recognize comment lines
> starting with # at column 1 such as
> #line "foo" 35
> # 35 "foo"
> # 35 "foo" 1
> 
> and would update its position to file "foo" line 35.

CPP sucks.  CPP sucks even as a C preprocessor.  If you run CPP for
conditional inclusion only and want to keep the line numbers, hack up
a simple perl script that will just comment out unused stuff (as well
as it's own directives if the syntax is not already that of lout
comments).

Also think about

    @PP
    The next line was just commented out, it happens to
    #include some pretty innocent text.
    contain some stuff that CPP will choke on.

I don't even metion @CP :-).


> By the way, is there any easy option to make Lout conditionnally
> process some stuff? 

Haven't checked this, but consider the following.

At content level:

  def @OnlyWhenFoo
    right x
  { @ProducingFoo @Case { Yes @Yield x else @Yeild {} }}

To conditionally include some file just put or omit it from the
command line.  Use --'<opt>{val}' to set parameters (say, above
mentioned @ProducingFoo).

Hope it helps.

SY, Uwe
-- 
address@hidden                         |       Zu Grunde kommen
http://www.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/            |       Ist zu Grunde gehen