[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: a name for the error token
|
From: |
Paul Eggert |
|
Subject: |
Re: RFC: a name for the error token |
|
Date: |
Sun, 26 Apr 2020 12:16:54 -0700 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 |
On 4/26/20 9:40 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
> d. So it could be simply "YYerror", which does show it's a built-in symbol
> (as YYEOF and YYUNDEF), yet it does not follow the convention of uppercase
> for tokens. Its symbol would be YYSYMBOL_YYerror of course.
>
>
> I have been thinking about this issue for weeks, and the more I think about
> it, the more I believe (d) is the least ugly approach.
>
> But maybe someone would have a better option?
How about YYERRATUM? The error token corresponds more closely to the English
word "erratum" than it does to the English word "error", as an erratum is an
error in writing or printing, whereas an error can be a lot of other things.
(Or if you don't like that, how about YYEOW or YYEOWCH? :-)
Anyway, the spelling doesn't matter all that much and YYerror would also be
fine.