[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: prologue alternatives
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: prologue alternatives |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:15:05 -0400 (EDT) |
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Paul Eggert wrote:
> >
> >> The
> >> old way is messy and complicated, but at least it's standardized and
> >> has well-known properties.
> >
> > Do these well-known properties include the way Bison puts %{...%}
> > sometimes in the header?
>
> No, sorry, I was referring only to the yacc method.
Ok, good. I was a little worried users may have become dependent on this.
Unless I've missed something, I believe we're all in agreement that we
should leave out this feature.
> That's simpler, thanks. But why bother to distinguish %stype-code
> from %ltype-code? Can't we simplify things even further by having
> %type-code { ... } that carries both sets of code?
Akim and I have observed that the semantic type may depend on the location
type. However, we agreed that the reverse dependency seems quite
unlikely. (Akim, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you.) Thus,
Bison should generate the location type definition before the semantic
type definition.
What if the user defines the semantic type himself without using %union?
That is, what if he puts it in %stype-code? Bison will need to generate
%stype-code after the location type definition but generate %ltype-code
before:
-------------------------------
enum yytokentype
%ltype-code blocks
YYLTYPE definition
%stype-code blocks
YYSTYPE definition
%header blocks
-------------------------------
%code blocks
> Come to think of it, why bother to distinguish %type-code from
> %header? Wouldn't %header suffice?
%*type-code cannot depend on all the Bison-generated definitions.
%header can.
(I'm wondering if %header ought to be called %header-code so that we can
talk about the %*code directives.)
- Re: prologue alternatives (was: Re: [GNU Bison 2.3] testsuite: 103 104 failed), Paul Eggert, 2006/09/13
- Re: prologue alternatives (was: Re: [GNU Bison 2.3] testsuite: 103 104 failed), Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/13
- Re: prologue alternatives, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/14
- Re: prologue alternatives,
Joel E. Denny <=
- Re: prologue alternatives, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/15
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/15
- Re: prologue alternatives, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/17