Re: [GLISS] why the hell all this fuss

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:42 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> There's one thing worth clarifying: when i say "syntax changes", i
>>> mean "changes in how user input looks like".  So a renaming of a
>>> command is a syntax change to me (despite the fact that no grammar
>>> rules change).
>>> That's probably confusing - what word should i use when i mean
>>> "changes in how user input looks like"?
>>
>> No idea.  What we have under the umbrella of "syntax discussion"
>> contains three things: lexical units, grammar and vocabulary, mostly
>> implemented in lexer.ll, parser.yy, and *.ly respectively.  In order to
>> keep syntax predictable, we want to be able to solve most problems just
>> by extending the vocabulary.  That means that lexical units and grammar
>> should be as generic, powerful, and simple as possible.  Specialized
>> lexical modes take power from the vocabulary.  We want to avoid them as
>> much as possible given our historic constraints.
>
> I completely agree with this. I have been giving some people a hard
> time in this discussion, but that is primarily for wanting to mess
> with either lexer.ll or parser.yy. As long as you don't that, I will
> not object fiercely to what syntax proposal anyone comes up with.

Actually, is there a particular reason we are generating a C parser
rather than a C++ parser?  The implications regarding marking and
garbage collection of semantic values are rather awful.

Probably historic because Bison did not use to come with C++ skeleton
files?

-- 
David Kastrup