[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [RFC] %language declaration

From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: [RFC] %language declaration
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:21:27 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)

>>> "Paolo" == Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> writes:

 > Convenient abbreviations, or convenient forms.  In this case, in C you
 > only need to add "%glr-parser" for example.  In C++, you have to change

 >    %skeleton ""

 > to

 >    %glr-parser
 >    %skeleton ""

Because that's really *two* changes!  You both change the computation
of the automaton, and the skeleton you use!  As of today, you can use
LALR(1) automaton in a GLR skeleton.

 > With %language, the change would be the same -- add "%glr-parser".

What do you do about people who want to use/work on a different
implementation?  Will they be able to use a simple name such as
"push.c"?  Will they have to patch bison to have it accept this name?

 > I'm also not going to delve into naming schemes for skeletons, and so
 > on.  It's not worth for sure while we have only two grammar kinds, and
 > if anything I'd rather have a config file in /usr/share/bison than
 > doing file system scanning.

This is not nice for user toying with their skeletons.  If you walk
that way, please don't touch the semantics of %skeleton at all.
Provide some other directives.

reply via email to

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