[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level.
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level. |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:36:43 -0400 (EDT) |
[Adding back bison-patches, which I never should have dropped.]
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Akim Demaille wrote:
> Le 17 avr. 09 à 09:30, Joel E. Denny a écrit :
>
> > Seeing the short life of api.pure, I'm not confident that the renames
> > we've discussed are stable enough for 2.5.
>
> Agreed. Besides, I'm getting worried about Boolean values, they don't
> generalize well enough. For instance %define error-verbose could be easily
> obsoleted by other error schemes, so %define error.verbosity or whatever might
> be more resilient to changes.
That's a good point. All Boolean variables are probably susceptible.
Maybe we should avoid creating any more.
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level., (continued)
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level., Joel E. Denny, 2009/04/16
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level., Joel E. Denny, 2009/04/09
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level., Akim Demaille, 2009/04/10
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level., Joel E. Denny, 2009/04/10
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level., Akim Demaille, 2009/04/14
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level., Joel E. Denny, 2009/04/14
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level., Akim Demaille, 2009/04/08
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level., Joel E. Denny, 2009/04/09
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level., Akim Demaille, 2009/04/10
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level., Joel E. Denny, 2009/04/10
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [PATCH] Factor %FLAG at scan level.,
Joel E. Denny <=