"Andreas Krebbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The lengthy part is necessary to have attribute getter functions which > allow to specify the alternative as additional parameter. I admit > that these are a lot of quite mechanical changes to the genattr stuff > but my hope was that these getter functions might be useful in other > contexts as well.
I'm not sure how. Right now you can refer to the attribute values for an alternative when computing a different attribute for that alternative. Can you use that ability to compute your enabled alternative? > Misusing the constraint letters to enable or disable alternatives is a > solution which is already used by back ends. On S/390 we have the 'O' > constraint familiy which only returns true for machines providing the > extended immediate facility. But actually this was one of the reasons > why I wanted to change this. I think this is a non-obvious mixture of > different concepts. The constraint letters should only depend on the > type of the operand. Adding additional conditions to it could create a > real mess. OK, fair enough. Ian