Re: proposal: simplify prologue alternatives into %code

[Paolo Bonzini]

> 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?

I'm ok with no default at all; I figured that *you* had a reason to have 
a default :-) and that anyway you need to give a name to the block (if 
only for consistency and simplicity).

One reason would be that (I'm making up this example in Java, where the 
absence of %union makes everything simpler)

%{
%}
...
%code {
}

could be an alternative way to say

%code "imports" {
}
...
%code "methods" {
}

not requiring one to remember the "magic" (and possibly easy to 
misspell?) keywords.

Paolo