Re: 3.7.14 Analysis

[Frank Heckenbach]

slipbits wrote:

> Often when <file>, file, filename is used what is meant is 
> <path>/filename. The discussion of filename appears to be a discussion 
> of <path>, things such as relative path and absolute path do not exist 
> for a filename. Could this be corrected in future Bison documentation?

That's a matter of terminology. The coding standards for the GNU
project (to which Bison belongs) say (and I happen to agree), see
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/GNU-Manuals.html
(a few paragraphs down):

  Please do not use the term "pathname" that is used in Unix
  documentation; use "file name" (two words) instead. We use the
  term "path" only for search paths, which are lists of directory
  names.

So what you call a "path" above would be called a "directory", and
"file name" includes the directory, thus can be relative or
absolute. (I'd call a file name without a directory a "base name",
though that's not specified there.)

Writing "<path>/filename" all the time (cf. your other comments)
seems quite unwieldy; another reason I agree to have a single term
for it.

(Not a Bison maintainer, though I've contributed to the Bison manual
and other GNU code and documentation.)