Re: [PATCH] Allow printing of malformed tree-il

2010-07-17 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, No Itisnt writes: >> Here we should produce a warning, I think, even if we are >> "permissive". Also please move the trailing parens to the previous >> line. > > Is there a standard way to do this? Presumably it will be printed on > *current-warning-port*, but any specific formatting guideli

Re: [PATCH] Allow printing of malformed tree-il

2010-07-17 Thread Andy Wingo
On Fri 09 Jul 2010 08:23, No Itisnt writes: >> Looks good; a couple of comments inline. If you want to kill trailing >> whitespace, though, please do that as a separate commit, without any >> functional changes > > How do you reconcile that with 'delete-trailing-whitespace? I don't, really. I do

Re: [PATCH] Allow printing of malformed tree-il

2010-07-08 Thread No Itisnt
> Looks good; a couple of comments inline. If you want to kill trailing > whitespace, though, please do that as a separate commit, without any > functional changes How do you reconcile that with 'delete-trailing-whitespace? > Here we should produce a warning, I think, even if we are > "permissive

Re: [PATCH] Allow printing of malformed tree-il

2010-07-08 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi, On Sat 03 Jul 2010 01:32, No Itisnt writes: > I've noticed while renovating my parser that it's pretty common for > unwanted values to weasel their way into tree-il. This patch adds an > optional else clause to unparse-tree-il, so when it's told to be > permissive, it will allow non-tree-il

[PATCH] Allow printing of malformed tree-il

2010-07-02 Thread No Itisnt
I've noticed while renovating my parser that it's pretty common for unwanted values to weasel their way into tree-il. This patch adds an optional else clause to unparse-tree-il, so when it's told to be permissive, it will allow non-tree-il values through without error, so as not to cause errors whi