Re: %name-prefix overrides --name-prefix?

[Hans Aberg]

On 14 Dec 2006, at 21:49, Joel E. Denny wrote:

> > But by this idea, language options should then not be alterable by  
> > startup
> > arguments. In particular, %language should only not be duplicated  
> > by a
> > --language. Perhaps this idea is what you sense intuitively.
>
> I'm afraid I don't know what is considered a "language option"  
> versus a
> "compiler option".

Though an intuitive concept, subject to interpretation, a language  
option would be the stuff in .y that should be present on any  
compiler, though there is only one, Bison. :-) A compiler option is  
what is compiler specific, like the #pragma in C/C++ preprocessing.  
The language option is limited to things that are strictly needed to  
generate the parser.

For example, --verbose seem to be a compiler option, the %verbose  
that already exists should then not be there. Unless one can think of  
a situation where the .output files is used in a parser or program.  
On the other hand, %defines writes headers that are crucial for  
getting the generated parser to work, so then --defines seem  
unnecessary.

Or so, I am playing around.

> Also, separate input files sounds like a paradigm
> shift (and a lot of implementation work) that I don't think we're  
> ready
> for.

Sure, and therefore probably not implementable. But the idea can be  
used to think about it.

  Hans Aberg