Re: [Akim Demaille] Naming the symbols

[Paul Eggert]

Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:

> That's not clear to me, if you consider things like
>
>        exp: exp '+' exp
>        exp -> exp '-' exp
>
> we have the same problem: where does the first rule end.

But we can insist on ";" after the first rule, too.  Once the user's
grammar contains "->", we can place any other restrictions that we
like on the grammar; POSIX won't care.

> I still think dropping the scanner hacks and moving towards using
> the GLR parser is a better road.

Yes, that could be true.  But I suspect it's a bigger project, and in
particular it will require considerably more testing.

> But then, why -> instead of the more traditional `::='.  Both are OK.

Aack!  Too many colons!

Besides, I thought that right-arrow was more traditional than "::=".
Didn't Chomsky use a right-arrow in 1956?  (::::-)

(Seriously: "::=" is fine with me too.)