Re: [PATCH 0/8] Make the BFD info manual a bit prettier

[Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>]

>> I noticed some oddities in the BFD info manual (see patch 7 and patch
>> 8 for details).  While trying to fix these, I found a number of other
>> things that could be cleaned up a bit, and this series is the result.
>> I tested this by rebuilding with --enable-maintainer-mode and diffing
>> the header files to make sure they didn't change.  Then I inspected
>> the manual, well, manually.

Nick> Patch series approved - please apply.

Nick> Thanks for fixing these issues.

Thanks for the review.  I've checked these in now.

There are still a few other issues to solve here.  Those don't look so
difficult, but I was wondering about making bigger changes here.  I have
a few queries in case you have a moment to respond.

While I like FORTH well enough, I suspect it might be nicer to just
rewrite chew in Python.  Over in gdb, we've standardized on that for all
our maintainer scripts; the main benefits are that a lot of people know
it and there are plenty of libraries, etc, to use.  What do you think of
this?

(Another option here would be to change the syntax a bit so it's more
FORTH-like... it'd be nice to be able to use some pre-existing Emacs
mode for this code, but chew is FORTH-ish without really following FORTH
syntax.)

Finally, it seems to me that it would be nicer if chew were merely a
documentation extractor.  Having it also generate source files seems
unfortunate.  For example, things like 'tags' don't work, because the
primary source code is actually in some comment somewhere.  It seems
like this could be changed so that code is just code, comments (and
maybe snippets of code) are extracted into the manual, and some of the
generated headers are turned into ordinary headers.  WDYT?

thanks,
Tom