Hotfix for #56 (cc doesn't work for many RGL languages) #57
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Should we merge this? Even though it maybe doesn't fix the underlying problem, it still makes things better for the user, with I assume no downside. So I suggest we merge. |
|
I'm happy to merge this 😁 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a patch for the immediate problem that resource grammarians want to run
gf-rgl/unittest/unnittest.pywith--no-pmcfg.In case of a conflict like
TenseX.PPosvs.GrammarEng.PPos, my patch checks if one of them is from a module in gf-rgl/src/common, and prefers the option that is not one of them.This is not an attempt to solve the real underlying problem in recognising excluded functions. I leave that for someone who understands the compiler code.