From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:03:14 +0200 From: Lucio De Re To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20110722180314.GD2065@fangle.proxima.alt.za> References: <2fb2c31fa3cb67d0f3fe70f628f24bf6@ladd.quanstro.net> <8e8648e7029cff027f2fbfc4920762ae@quintile.net> <20110722175330.GB2065@fangle.proxima.alt.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110722175330.GB2065@fangle.proxima.alt.za> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 Go (Was: GNU/Linux/Plan 9 disto) Topicbox-Message-UUID: 04d71d7c-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 07:53:30PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote: > That suggests that porting Bison is a "must" as anything else will > not meet the criterion of being included in the Go distribution. > Bootstrapping Bison seems to be my main obstacle (it relies on Bison > features, not least the very same %error-verbose I have encountered in > Go), but it can be overcome by using cross-processing from either NetBSD > or UBUNTU, so that's just some effort on my part. > I fear this is the exact opposite of what Bakul recommends. I hope it is clear that my approach is totally contrary to his suggestions, through no ill will on either side :-) ++L