This message was rejected by bison-patches the last time I tried to send it, so here it is again.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:19:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Joel E. Denny <[email protected]> To: Alex Rozenman <[email protected]> Cc: Akim Demaille <[email protected]>, [email protected] Subject: Re: "notes" mechanism On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Alex Rozenman wrote: > > Can you explain your motivation a little more? Is it that you want to > > reuse the same *_at invocations to list variants in both the warning and > > complaint cases? You could add to note_at a bool argument that specifies > > whether to invoke warn_at or complain_at. > > > My motivation was the following: > 1) Keep overall *number* of errors/warnings issued by bison reasonable. When > bison issues an "ambiguity" error with 10 sub-messages, overall number of > errors (if one does "grep" on output, or, alternatively bison itself will > count them and print a summary message) should be one. That begs another question: why do we need to count the errors or warnings? Maybe there's a good reason, but I don't know it yet. > 2) Not to see the "warning" word in each sub-message. I don't see the appeal of that change either, but maybe I've just grown accustomed to the current practice. I just checked gcc 4.2.4, and it also prints "warning:" on every submessage. (Actually, gcc also prints "error:" for errors in the same manner.) Unless there are other practical reasons for these changes, I think we need more opinions. Akim says he'll be back in a couple of weeks. He usually has a better sense of whether it's ok to change long-standing practices in Bison.
