Re: proposal: simplify prologue alternatives into %code

[Joel E. Denny]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> Okay, so we'd have only %code, %code "imports", and the epilogue.

Yes.  Does that sound reasonable to you?

> I would love to have "%code" be synonym with a particular QUALIFIER, rather
> than a separate muscle.  Bonus points if you can make it skeleton-defined: so,
> in Java, %code would be synonym with %code "methods"; in C/C++, with %code
> "prototypes" (made up, but you get the idea).

If we're going to give the default a name, why have a default at all?  
Imagine reading a grammar file containing the following two directives:

  %code { CODE }

  %code "methods" { CODE }

They look different, so my intuition says they should do something 
different, but you're proposing that they do the same thing.

Why do you want to do this?