[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "notes" mechanism (fwd)
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: "notes" mechanism (fwd) |
Date: |
Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:38:04 -0400 (EDT) |
User-agent: |
Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) |
This message was rejected by bison-patches the last time I tried to send
it, so here it is again.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:19:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joel E. Denny <address@hidden>
To: Alex Rozenman <address@hidden>
Cc: Akim Demaille <address@hidden>, address@hidden
Subject: Re: "notes" mechanism
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Alex Rozenman wrote:
> > Can you explain your motivation a little more? Is it that you want to
> > reuse the same *_at invocations to list variants in both the warning and
> > complaint cases? You could add to note_at a bool argument that specifies
> > whether to invoke warn_at or complain_at.
> >
> My motivation was the following:
> 1) Keep overall *number* of errors/warnings issued by bison reasonable. When
> bison issues an "ambiguity" error with 10 sub-messages, overall number of
> errors (if one does "grep" on output, or, alternatively bison itself will
> count them and print a summary message) should be one.
That begs another question: why do we need to count the errors or
warnings? Maybe there's a good reason, but I don't know it yet.
> 2) Not to see the "warning" word in each sub-message.
I don't see the appeal of that change either, but maybe I've just grown
accustomed to the current practice. I just checked gcc 4.2.4, and it also
prints "warning:" on every submessage. (Actually, gcc also prints
"error:" for errors in the same manner.)
Unless there are other practical reasons for these changes, I think we
need more opinions. Akim says he'll be back in a couple of weeks. He
usually has a better sense of whether it's ok to change long-standing
practices in Bison.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: "notes" mechanism (fwd),
Joel E. Denny <=