I share Tom's thoughts completely. My personal goal is definitely to make ecpg
parser generation a fully automated task. The only manual work I see in the
future is adding some special ecpg handling. I fully expect this script to
generate a working parser for every single change in gram.y. However, if some
new rule needs a different aka non-default handling in ecpg that will remain
manual, but the automatic process should nevertheless create a parser with
default handling for this new rule, thus not breaking anything but the new
feature in ecpg, which of course cannot get broken because it is new.
Is this understandable? :-)
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org
Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
