Re: Compiled files without sources????

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

David Engster <deng@randomsample.de> writes:

> Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
>> Lars Ingebrigtsen writes:
>>
>>  > It was a minor boo-boo, and it's been fixed,
>>
>> It wasn't a "boo-boo", it was a deliberate omission for the
>> convenience of the Emacs and CEDET developers who considered
>> integration of CEDET functionality more important than the principle
>> of software freedom.
>
> Since you start with the finger pointing: This merge didn't happen
> behind closed doors, but was openly discussed on this very list. It was
> actually me who suggested the current setup, and it was in this thread:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/115053
>
> The compromise was to let grammar development happen in CEDET
> upstream. I did suggest this in good faith; in fact, it would have taken
> almost no work at all to commit the plain grammar files to Emacs
> trunk. But without Bovine and Wisent, the CEDET parser generators, those
> grammar files are practically useless; contrary to what was written on
> LWN/Slashdot/wherever, the grammars are not Bison compatible. To do any
> actual work with them, you need to get CEDET, and then you will get all
> the grammars anyway.

Not the corresponding versions to what is included in Emacs.

Now Chong stated that he had to hand-edit the resulting grammars to make
them fit into what is included in Emacs.  That seems like a bad idea
with regard to meeting the source obligations and maintainability.  So
what would be entailed to let upstream CEDET generate compiled grammars
directly usable in Emacs?  Why don't they work out of the box when the
parser runtime is ostensibly what is present in upstream CEDET?  Can the
differences be factored out into variables?

-- 
David Kastrup