Re: experimental features in Bison 2.3a+

[Joel E. Denny]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Hans Aberg wrote:

> On 4 Dec 2006, at 22:55, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> 
> > > Or so, was my idea with %code. I am not sure what the idea is to now add a
> > > much more lmited variation of that command - evidently it is not in 2.3.a.
> > 
> > Does this not satisfy your needs?
> > 
> >   %define "NAME" { CODE }
> 
> Apart from the ugly, redundant quotes around the macro name

I could argue both sides of that, but I think it's not worth the time.  
Given that the above is consistent with the existing %define syntax, I'd 
rather just leave it be.

> , there might be
> problems in the future, if the code part should be parsed according to
> language. Then %define is better reserved for verbatim macros, and %code for
> code placement.

For verbatim strings:

  %define "NAME" "STRING"

For code that needs to be parsed:

  %define "NAME" { CODE }

How does calling it %code in the second case solve the problem of multiple 
languages?

I think I'm missing your point.