Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes:> On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:03 PM, David A. Greene wrote: >> >>>> How about a less massive and complicated scheme? I think we can >>>> make some good improvements to the current spec that will help >>>> with the MIC work. >>> >>> I'd like to defer MIC work until it's finalized. But yes, incremental >>> refinement is always welcome. >> >> Ok. I'd like to do some of this incremental work to prepare for MIC. I >> will do this in small batches and please do keep telling me when I'm >> heading off track. :) >> > As the release enginerd, I would encourage you to hold off any changes > to TableGen until after Friday, if they can wait. :-) Of course, Jakob > gets the final say on whether they go in or not.If I can get the for loop done, it would benefit all targets even if it's just used for top-level defs. It would be a nice 3.0 feature, I think. What do you think, Jakob? I would not do any other major changes before the branch. Doing otherwise would be mostly insane. :) -Dave
On Oct 10, 2011, at 7:21 AM, David A. Greene wrote:> Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > >> As the release enginerd, I would encourage you to hold off any changes >> to TableGen until after Friday, if they can wait. :-) Of course, Jakob >> gets the final say on whether they go in or not. > > If I can get the for loop done, it would benefit all targets even if > it's just used for top-level defs. It would be a nice 3.0 feature, I > think. > > What do you think, Jakob?Absolutely not. /jakob
Jakob Stoklund Olesen <jolesen at apple.com> writes:> On Oct 10, 2011, at 7:21 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > >> Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: >> >>> As the release enginerd, I would encourage you to hold off any changes >>> to TableGen until after Friday, if they can wait. :-) Of course, Jakob >>> gets the final say on whether they go in or not. >> >> If I can get the for loop done, it would benefit all targets even if >> it's just used for top-level defs. It would be a nice 3.0 feature, I >> think. >> >> What do you think, Jakob? > > Absolutely not.Ok..... Now I'm baffled. Do you object to the for loop in general or just doing it before 3.0? -Dave