[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: |
Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:57:42 -0400 (EDT) |
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > In this case, the user might wish not to use %defines. However, some of
> > the skeletons require %defines. In order to get the declaration order
> > right in that required header file, it might be necessary to have:
> >
> > %defines "my_parser.h" {
> > $var{stype-code}
> > $var{YYSTYPE}
> > }
> >
> > to tell Bison that "my_parser.h" is the header file it requires.
>
> Sorry, I don't quite follow. Would the above be syntactic sugar for this?
>
> %{ #include "my_parser.h" %}
> %file "my_parser.h" {
> $var{stype-code}
> $var{YYSTYPE}
> }
>
> If not, then what is the difference?
For some skeletons (C++ and GLR as I recall), Bison would need to know
that "my_parser.h" is the main parser header file so that it won't
complain that %defines is required. That is, `%defines "my_parser.h"
{...}' would be the same as `%file "my_parser.h" {...}' except it tells
Bison that "my_parser.h" is this special file.
> It sounds like you're thinking
> %defines should put something extra into my_parser.h
No.
>, but if that's an
> issue can't we give that extra thing a name and let it be another
> $var{tokens} or something like that?
I think so.
- Re: prologue alternatives, (continued)
- 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
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/18
- Re: prologue alternatives, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/18
- Re: prologue alternatives,
Joel E. Denny <=