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

[Konrad Eisele <eiselekd@gmail.com>]

>> 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 have to revise my previous assumption though:

#define B(y) A(x)
B(1)

i thought that in the body expansion of B recursion is involved,
so that it would yield:

   expand_macro(A);
expand_macro(B);

but that was wrong, so its

expand_macro(B);
expand_macro(A);

you might be right here. expand() is flat when substituting
the body part of the macro. It might work.

-- 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
>>
>