Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 09/11/2007, Juan Luis Liarte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Strangely, I am subscribed to the gcc@gcc.gnu.org and did not get by
email Juan Luis' first message but I read it on the web
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00266.html)
Hello to all,
myparameter=
Common RejectNegative Joined
It works, but I have been thinking on it, and maybe this way to insert
arguments is a little bit messy. For example, the keyword RejectNegative
is not very intuitive, and the documentation about the options is a
little bit confusing.
Why messy? On the contrary, I would suggest that it is too simple and
we should have a more flexible syntax so we can auto-generate more
code.
RejectNegative is not intuitive? I really would like to hear your
suggestion. Honestly, not sarcasm here.
I agree with the original poster Juan Luis Liarte, RejectNegative, as a
marker for string argument, is extremely counterintuitive: strings are
not negative (nor positive)! So I welcome another keyword form them.
Perhaps just StringArgument could be ok?
Is there some case where RejectNegative does what it suggest, ie accept
(only) numerical (integer) arguments and reject them if they are less
than 0?
But if you can implement a new and better syntax, that would be
welcomed too. Please, explain what that intuitive form could be.
Also, you would need to be versed in awk, since the scripts that parse
the *.opt files and generate C code for options are written in awk. Or
alternatively, you would need to replace them with something else. But
that won't be a little patch anymore.
Even if it is not a tiny patch, I would welcome it (but I am not in
position of formally approving it).
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
