[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] %language declaration

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [RFC] %language declaration
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:48:00 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20060719)

Akim Demaille wrote:
"Paul" == Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

 > Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> writes:
 >>> Would something similar, of course with documentation and against
 >>> mainline rather than 2.0, be ok to apply?  The copyright process is
 >>> in the works.

 > I like the idea, and thanks.

 > Akim, what do you think?  I vaguely recall you wanted something like
 > this but don't recall the details.

Actually it is the converse: I meant to avoid as much as possible any
reference to the output language in the input, because I have yet to
see where it can be useful.
I agree with Tim. Bison should avoid as much as possible any *dependence* on the output language in the input (e.g. it would be crazy to change the definition of identifiers, or expecting [] instead of {} in a hypotetical Smalltalk parser), but this is just syntactic sugar for choosing a skeleton.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]