[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 14:32:20 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
>>> "Paolo" == Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> writes:
> 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.
Sugar? In my book syntactic sugar means providing convenient
abbreviations. I fail to see that here.
But if that's a common demand, I won't stop you here. I just feel
like we're not KISS. I foresee the code that will be needed to report
that a given skeleton type does not exists for a given language, that
a given language is not supported (which will require browsing the
file system as I am against open-coding any material related to the
skeletons/languages in Bison etc.).
- [RFC] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/09/11
- Re: [RFC] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/09/11
- Re: [RFC] %language declaration, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/11
- Re: [RFC] %language declaration, Akim Demaille, 2006/09/14
- Re: [RFC] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/09/14
- Re: [RFC] %language declaration,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: [RFC] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/09/14
- Re: [RFC] %language declaration, Akim Demaille, 2006/09/14
- Re: [RFC] %language declaration, Paolo Bonzini, 2006/09/15
- Re: [RFC] %language declaration, Tim Van Holder, 2006/09/14
- Re: [RFC] %language declaration, Akim Demaille, 2006/09/14
Re: [RFC] %language declaration, Tim Van Holder, 2006/09/14