Re: inserting into tab.h, after %union

[Joel E. Denny]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Hans Aberg wrote:

> Wordings like:
> 
> %code {code }
> Other than semantic actions, this is probably the most common place you should
> write
> verbatim code for the parser implementation.
> 
> Does not really tell what the command does.

I intended it to help you remember the concept of the directive.  There 
are sentences afterwards that explain what it does at the low-level.

> > > My intent was to get my programs working for current Bison, now that I can
> > > use %define, but reality prevents me from attaining it.
> > 
> > You can't download 2.3a for the %define extension?  Or you want the %code,
> > %requires, etc. directives from CVS?
> 
> I have it, and got started. But "reality" refers to unrelated stuff preventing
> me to work on it. Then, these discussions started, me being half-way trying to
> get my project working with current Bison.

Ah.  We can stop if you like.  :)

> To me, it looked as though "code file" just means a file containing code.

Without keeping the Open Group spec in mind, yes, I can see that it sounds 
that way.  It's the same point I made about "source file".  At the moment, 
I can't think of any name that's unambiguous for this purpose.

However, we're pretty far off topic now.  I just meant to point out that, 
if you've read the Yacc spec, it seems logical that %code and %code-top 
put code in the source/code/implementation/tab.c file.

> Because I use a polymorphic class hierarchy, with a special Flex header setup,
> and that was certainly not in the consideration of the work done with Bison so
> far. So my worry is getting stuff that complicates the implementation of this
> with standard Bison even further.

If you find an example where the new directives will complicate reasonable 
code, I'd appreciate a post about it.  However, it's not likely to go far 
without an alternative proposal.