Am Freitag, den 26.11.2010, 11:03 -0500 schrieb Felix: > > The "style" warning I'd like to avoid if all possible. > > Me too. > > > > > I'd rather vote for changing the syntax definitions (one-by-one, tell me > > the git/svn/wtf reference and I'll try my best). > > Don't bother with it. There are quite a number of situations where > a a conditional with an undefined branch must appear in tail-position.
Well, if it was a compiler switch, off by default, it should not do harm. Would it? Wrt. the "don't bother": Once I had to "compile" a huge amount of documents (the BTX documentation) from a very low level markup (which was fortunately used in a very style-guide-driven way into a higher level markup (docbook actually). At a point I learned, that it can be more efficient to go manually through a huge amount of files an check for a certain pattern, the custom made "compiler" will not understand. I mean: ' can do this again. > > I see. I understand: could be as efficient, but that would need quite a > > lot of other changes. Right? > > > > Yes, a lot of changes. I a way - I have to admit; and for whatever it's worth - I feel compelled to learn where those changes came into play. _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
