Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull

[Joel E. Denny]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Joel E. Denny wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Akim Demaille wrote:
> 
> > >>> "JED" == Joel E Denny <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> >  > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >  >> 
> >  >> >   %define api.push_pull "push|pull|both"
> >  >> >   %define api.pure      "true||false"
> >  >> 
> >  >> Might be an idea; but what I dislike is the repetition between 
> > "push_pull" and
> >  >> the argument.
> > 
> >  > Yeah, that's been bugging me a little too.  Can we think of a precise 
> > term 
> >  > for push vs. pull?
> > 
> > mode?
> > call?
> > feed?
> > tokens?
> > scanner?
> > 
> >         %define api.token pull
> 
> What do you think of api.token_feed?

For Bison, purity primarily affects another aspect of how tokens are fed 
to the parser, so token_feed seems too general.  I think we may be in a 
situation where there just isn't any precedent other than the phrase "push 
vs. pull", so push_pull may be the clearest name for the user.  Thoughts?