On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Jeff Frontz <jeff.fro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Keith Bierman <khb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> reorganizing to leverage the new infrastructure shouldn't be resisted ;> >> >> > Again, agreed -- but can the new infrastructure be leveraged to bring the > entire AST build process along (or otherwise leave the existing process > still operable)? > As I mentioned in my other reply my intent was to clone just the directories needed to build ksh93 into a separate subtree and only do backward incompatible changes (e.g., changing the build tool chain) in that subtree. That would leave the existing AST build process still operable. This does mean that the existing src/ tree is unlikely to see many changes. Certainly I wasn't planning on backporting changes from the new ksh93 only subtree to the existing src/ tree. That's because I expect the two code bases to be radically different in the near future due to doing things like running the code through clang-format to normalize the style and oclint to identify code that is either outright broken or merely confusing. We could simply fork a new project that was ksh93 only but it seems preferable to me to keep the modernized ksh93 source under the umbrella of the existing AST project. -- Kurtis Rader Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank
_______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list ast-developers@lists.research.att.com http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
