>>> "Joel" == Joel E Denny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Akim Demaille wrote: >> Then indeed --yacc seems the right thing. But then we have another >> problem: The Autotools currently quite promote using `bison -y' (so >> that the file naming conventions are those of Yacc). Autoconf and >> Automake should be upgraded to support native Bison in addition of >> stupid yacc names. > If I understand you correctly, removing the #define's in the absence of > `-y' wouldn't cause any compatibility issue with autotools since autotools > promotes the usage of `-y'. In other words, this change could be made to > bison now with no changes to autotools. > However, you're saying there wouldn't be a way to remove #define's *and* > take advantage of AC_PROG_YACC and automake's lex and yacc compilation > features at the same time. Right? > If you were to add native bison support to autotools, how would automake > know when you need yacc and when you need bison? What if you need both? > Should automake recognize a ".bison" suffix as the bison-equivalent of > yacc's ".y"? When I write a bison spec that isn't yacc-compatible, it's > my habit to use ".bison" anyway... because it just seems more logical. Why not, that's an idea. But you need to help Automake know what the output language is too. > Moreover, if a user depends on native bison features (such as removal of > #define's), then he shouldn't use AC_PROG_YACC since it might find > something other than bison. Are you planning to add AC_PROG_BISON? I should have... I have to write this in my TODO list.
