On 2023-05-09 13:51, Cyril Arnould wrote:
> > Cyril, are you done discussing this, or do I need to wait some more?
>
> I was actually hoping to get Reto's and/or your input on two
> points, the first one being:
>
> > Since this introduces changes in the vhdl-compiler type, I guess
> > it would be appropriate to increment the vhdl-version number?
>
> I've seen that on Reto's website, the latest vhdl-version number
> is 3.38.4, while in the emacs repository it's at 3.38.1. I'm not
> sure if this is intentional or if it simply hasn't been tracked
> in emacs. If development is not intended to diverge, we could
> skip ahead to 3.38.5 or 3.39.1.

Development has already diverged.  I have in the meantime fixed numerous 
indentation bugs and added support for VHDL'18, among other changes.  I 
know this is not ideal, but I was not able to approve of all the changes 
that have been made on Emacs side some time ago, without sufficient 
testing.  I'm in the process of integrating most of these changes in my 
code though.  I will also release 3.39.1 myself soon.

So I would suggest to release your changes under 3.38.5.

> The second point is that we now have two solutions for backwards
> compatibility code. There's my original solution which is a
> slight modification of already established backwards
> compatibility code. Alternatively, there's the solution
> elaborated with Mattias which should be safer but is less
> tested. If using a more "experimental" solution is no problem
> then we can go ahead with the new approach.

I'm not sure why backwards compatibility code is needed here.  The only 
change here is that an additional element (cons) is added to a sub-list, 
which however can be nil when no warning/info syntax is present.  On my 
side it works without compatibility code.

Reto