Re: Fwd: dependency tee from c parser entities downto token

[Konrad Eisele <eiselekd@gmail.com>]

On 05/10/2012 01:25 PM, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Konrad Eisele<konrad@gaisler.com>  wrote:
>>
>> You didnt get it. The "_cannot_" was ironic. There is always
>> a way you can fit things. The point is you want to implement it
>> yourself, exaclty the way you think it should be done, then do it.
>> I've nothing to contribute.
>> I've also nothing against you personally, only against this
>> ping pong emailing. It takes too much time.
>
> Well, the __cannot__ part is base on your reply you seems don't
> wish to continue this discussion.
>
> A change like this is bound to need some careful discussion and
> planing. Yes, I am guilt of only accepting patches meet some subjective
> stander of mine. But so is to any self respect project maintainers.
> I would rather spend some time to do it right than commit some thing
> I would regret later on.

Do a B(B(x)) and your sym->parent linked-list will fail.
-- Konrad

>
> I heard you that this discussion is taking long. That is why I offer
> to write up the core sparse part of the change myself and let you
> provide feed back to shape it the way we both can happy.
> That is the agreement we have earlier right?
>
> So I did exactly what I said I am going to do, now you are calling
> me my way vs your way?
>
> My evaluation function is straightly technical merit:
>
> - I prefer patch minimize performance impact on other clients don't
> use this feature.
> - I prefer simpler interface over complicate one.
>
> To me, believe it or not, It is never about my way vs your way.
> If you submit a perfect patch, I would more than happy to apply it.
> Apply a patch is much easier than writing one myself.
>
> Chris
>