Re: %union ... {

[Paul Eggert]

Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:

> The other possibility, the one I prefer, is to make it syntactic but
> more restricted: accept a single optional ID in the grammar (then of
> course we have no problems with comments).

OK, thanks, your arguments make sense, and you talked me into it.

One detail, though: what kind of identifier?  Should we allow '::' for
the sake of C++ namespace usage?  I don't much use C++ so I'm not a
good judge here.  (It's hard to Google for usages of this form, I'm
afraid.)

I assume we don't want to allow \unnn and \Unnnnnnnn or multibyte
letters and digits (valid in C identifiers), since it'd be hard to
verify which combinations are valid.

Yacc identifiers also allow '.'; should we allow that?  Probably not.

(Don't you just love this can of worms?  :-)