🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8906062051.AA06600@nueng.> saini@nueng.ai.mit.edu (Riju Saini) writes:
++ 
++ 	Hi,
++ 	   I am not sure if this is the right place to report bugs that I
++ 	found in `gperf'. I am sending it here in the hope that it
++ 	will be noticed by someone.

Hi Riju,

  This is indeed the place to send gperf bugs.

++     (1) The tests provided with cperf ran perfectly, but on experimenting
++ 	with some of the command line switches I found gperf to generate
++ 	incorrect C code for the `wordlist' structure initialization.
++ 	Any combination of the '-t -p' switchs with the '-D' switch produces
++ 	this error. Part of the (error) output generated on the `c-parse.gperf'
++ 	file is given below:

  That is indeed a bug.  I've fixed it in the next release.

++     (2) This is not a bug, but more like a suggestion for maybe an
++ 	extra option...
++ 	I find the use of the string comparison function `strncmp' better
++ 	(under certain conditions) justified than using `strcmp'. Since
++ 	the length of the string is always passed to `in_word_set' this
++ 	can be implimented with relative ease, or provided as a command
++ 	line option. I find the use of `strncmp' specially attractive when
++ 	I want to pickup keywords from *one* large string, the keyword
++ 	lengths being fixed. For example: I am trying to parse a chemical

  That sounds reasonable.  I'll add that to the (growing) list of
gperf options.  If anyone else has any suggestions for gperf
modifications please forward them to me at schmidt@ics.uci.edu.
  
  thanks,
  
        Doug
--
Any man's death diminishes me,              | schmidt@ics.uci.edu (ARPA)
Because I am involved in Mankind;           | office: (714) 856-4043
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee        -- John Donne