On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 09:43:37PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote:
> ...
> > I think emitting into a .h file would be a good solution. But wouldn't
> > it then be better to directly add a genparse file (e.g. ls.gp) instead of
> > extracting it from ls.c? ls.c wo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote:
...
> I think emitting into a .h file would be a good solution. But wouldn't
> it then be better to directly add a genparse file (e.g. ls.gp) instead of
> extracting it from ls.c? ls.c would no longer have to be modified then.
The disadvantage is that there
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 06:17:30PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote:
> > when I posted a patch around Christmas which showed how genparse
> > could generate the parser code for the ping command of the inetutils
> > Alfred Szmidt replied that in that example there
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote:
> when I posted a patch around Christmas which showed how genparse
> could generate the parser code for the ping command of the inetutils
> Alfred Szmidt replied that in that example there are 2 loops (see
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-inetutils/200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote:
> when I posted a patch around Christmas which showed how genparse
> could generate the parser code for the ping command of the inetutils
> Alfred Szmidt replied that in that example there are 2 loops (see
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-inetutils/200
Hi,
when I posted a patch around Christmas which showed how genparse
could generate the parser code for the ping command of the inetutils
Alfred Szmidt replied that in that example there are 2 loops (see
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-inetutils/2007-12/msg7.html):
1. The switch statem
