On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:20:18AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:04:06PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >> We might be saying the same thing using different languages. >> >> >> >> I was the %r/%R markers are ways of implementing the IL language >> >> I suggested in that message. So, as such I do not object to it. >> >> Having an explicit call makes the FE makes a "colorful" formatting >> >> decision way too early -- a FE shouldn't be concerned about color matters. >> >> That decision should be left to the device doing the formatting. >> >> Separation >> >> of concerns here isn't just taste; it is good engineering practice. >> > >> > But the decision is left to the device doing the formatting. >> > The %r/%R only says, this text in between is of this kind (locus, quote >> > (well, that is automatically done by the patch also for %</%> and %qs >> > etc.), >> > etc.), and we either color that using GCC_COLORS (or default) defined color >> > if requested through command line option and terminal supports it, or we >> > don't. >> >> We are in violent agreement. I was explaining my take on %r/%R to Manuel. > > So are you ok with the posted patch as is (note, the default is never there), > or would you like me to introduce %U (in addition or instead of > %r/%R), something else? Jason acked it if nobody else has comments > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00536.html > but there were some, thus I'm looking for additional ack or review comments > ;) > > Jakub
Patch OK. -- Gaby
