This is a copy of the suggestion I made in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2015-01/msg1.html
Karl Berry suggested I ask for your views first.
Various programs (including gcc and bison) support caret error
messages, and recent versions have it activated by default.
Caret outpu
rse, perhaps we can get some preliminary results soon ...
Frank
--
Frank Heckenbach, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fjf.gnu.de/
GnuPG and PGP keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan (7977168E)
sary extra work.
So IMHO the best thing for a smooth transition would be to add 4.x
support as far as we can, with conditionals, so everyone can test it
and we can drop earlier backend as soon as (safely) possible.
Frank
--
Frank Heckenbach, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fjf.gnu.de/
GnuPG and PGP keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan (7977168E)
e this case as we don't use FFS_EXPR
anyway. (This code was originally copied from the C frontend,
without checking whether we need it all.)
But the general question remains, as there are probably other
similar cases.
Frank
--
Frank Heckenbach, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fjf.gnu.de/
GnuPG and PGP keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan (7977168E)
d data structures).
If you or Jim want to take this effort, then let's discuss the
details first before you start something on your own. We (Waldek and
I) currently have some open issues where we consider to (or did
already) add private tree codes, and I suppose they should be
handled by thi
d or bad from
your POV in general, and as I wrote I have some reservations from my
POV as well. But this one is not a valid point anyway.
Frank
--
Frank Heckenbach, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fjf.gnu.de/
GnuPG and PGP keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan (7977168E)
inimal documentation
(while slowly trying to fill the existing gaps).
Frank
--
Frank Heckenbach, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fjf.gnu.de/
GnuPG and PGP keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan (7977168E)
