On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Paul Eggert wrote: > > your proposal just seems like a more verbose version of > > mine. To be fair, I'll assume -P is an abbreviation for --skeleton-path. > > Now: > > > > bison -P /some/path -S skel.c > > > > versus: > > > > bison -S /some/path/skel.c > > Sorry, I don't follow the "versus". > > The --skeleton-path argument would affect not the interpretation of > absolute file names, so both forms would work under my proposal -- > it's up to the user. Similarly for the other example you gave. > This is similar to cc -I.
Sorry, of course #include will take absolute file names. I wasn't thinking. I should have used a "./" example instead. So, here's my original proposal again: 1. "/root/path" 2. "./cwd/path" 3. "path/relative/to/install" Your proposal agrees with #1 and #3 and adds --skeleton-path to influence #3. Would it hurt to also support #2? Without #2 you have: bison -P . -S skel.c or: %skeleton "skel.c" bison -P . With #2, you can have: bison -S ./skel.c or: %skeleton "./skel.c"
