Dear Tom,
> > Well, the current status of the infrastructure is that there is no hint;-)
>
> Ah, now I remember why I was waiting to review that stuff: I was expecting
> you to come out with a version that actually did some things :-(
Well, if you wait for something from me, it is better to tell me directly.
I was waiting for anything to happen to the patch (accept, discuss or
reject) before submitting anything else.
> What you've got at the moment is a patch that significantly uglifies the
> grammar without actually doing anything useful, or even clearly pointing
> the way to what else will need to happen before it does do something
> useful. So it's difficult to form any reasoned judgment about whether
> we want to commit to following this path or not.
I can see your point.
The reasonnable way out of the deadlock that I can suggest is the
following:
I can resubmit a new patch that would provide the needed infrastructure
AND some hints on some commands as a proof of concept of what can be
achieved.
Then you can decide whether it is worth having this kind of thing on all
commands, or not.
If not, I won't have passed 3 week-ends in the parser instead if my
garden for nothing. If you are okay then you apply, and I'll submit some
new patches later on, one command at a time, and when I have time.
Does this sound reasonnable enough?
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr