Forwarding to list: Tom Browder wrote: > Anyway, I'm just getting bruised in the syntax of the autogen language > while helping Tim Josling resurrect gcc cobol. I couldn't find any > reference to old autogen but, looking at Tim's old template files, it > looks as if there has been a massive change since about 2001.
I believe it was the change from version 4 to 5. Version 4 templates had a peculiar-to-autogen macro language. Now I have a small set of keywords and the extension language is the Guile scripting language (aka "scheme"). That change was, indeed, long, long ago. > The question I asked was is there any way to get a comment in the > template files that won't be carried over to the generated file. That > way comments that make sense in the template context but not otherwise > would not clutter user space. doc->template file->AutoGen Native Macros->COMMENT but re-reading it shows it could use a couple more words, thank you. http://autogen.sourceforge.net/doc/autogen_146.html#SEC146 > (As an side, an automatic message in the generated code giving the > names of the autogen input files would be useful.) doc->template file->AutoGen Scheme Functions->def-file and tpl-file You have to choose to put these into your output file. > I'm too new at autogen to say one way or the other about its utility, > but Tim Josling loves it, and I trust his judgement. I look forward > to learning more about how to use it because I do lots of c++ and > PostScript code generation with perl and my own brand of definition > files. > > Thanks. You're welcome. - Bruce ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Autogen-users mailing list Autogen-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/autogen-users
