Re: [jamboost] Re: cool generators insight

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-05 08:40:59

David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > {CPP,CPP} <- ECPP (only first CPP must be further converted into NM_ASM)
>
> How is that not an automatic ambiguity?

I don't know what's "automatic ambiguity". I don't see anything wrong about 
processing the first file in a different way from the second.

> You might get around that by generating a derived type of CPP,
> e.g. NM_CPP, which can be converted into NM_ASM.

Say, I write

nm_exe foo : foo.cpp ;

Here's "foo.cpp" is of type CPP, and it should be converted into NM_ASM. 
Writing 

nm_exe foo : foo.nm_cpp

is not that nice.

- Volodya