Re: terminal @number vs. @user-number

[Hans Aberg]

On 24 Oct 2007, at 22:55, Joel E. Denny wrote:

> > > Currently, Bison puts a terminal's user number (the one returned  
> > > by yylex)
> > > in its XML "number" attribute.  I think we should rename that to
> > > "user-number" and add a "number" attribute for Bison's internal  
> > > symbol
> > > number.  This would be more consistent with nonterminals.  I'd be  
> > > happy
> > > the write the patch.  Is all this agreeable to you, Wojciech?
> >
> > Perhaps giving more sci-tech names :-):
> >
> > The token number variable might be termed "token-number". The set  
> > of terminals
> > and non-terminals is technically called "vocabulary", so the  
> > yytname_[]
> > values, if that is what you mean, might be called "word-number" or  
> > something.
>
> What about @symbol-number and @token-number?

I think those are fine:

I think "token-number" should be used, because "token" is the name  
that Bison uses (and not "terminal").

And I have found no technical definition of name of the members of  
the vocabulary of a grammar. But the non-terminals (resp. terminals)  
may be called grammar variables (resp. constants), and both variables  
and constants are in math symbols with different functions. So  
"symbol-number" seems fine. And so, the members of the vocabulary  
could perhaps be called "symbols" then, with a common name. Thank you  
for the suggestion! :-)

> > As for changing the token numbers, one needs to make sure POSIX  
> > does not
> > require something, like a range starting value.
>
> I feel that we should not change them.

Yeah, I think that is safest, too.

  Hans Aberg