[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: prologue alternatives
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: prologue alternatives |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:29:15 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
"Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> writes:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
>> The
>> old way is messy and complicated, but at least it's standardized and
>> has well-known properties.
>
> Do these well-known properties include the way Bison puts %{...%}
> sometimes in the header?
No, sorry, I was referring only to the yacc method.
> Any code related to the semantic type or to the location type goes in
> %stype-code {...} or %ltype-code {...}, respectively. This includes
> dependencies, #define YYSTYPE, and #define YYLTYPE. Any other code for
> the header goes in %header {...}. Any other code for the code file goes
> in %code {...}.
That's simpler, thanks. But why bother to distinguish %stype-code
from %ltype-code? Can't we simplify things even further by having
%type-code { ... } that carries both sets of code?
Come to think of it, why bother to distinguish %type-code from
%header? Wouldn't %header suffice?
- Re: prologue alternatives (was: Re: [GNU Bison 2.3] testsuite: 103 104 failed), Paul Eggert, 2006/09/13
- Re: prologue alternatives (was: Re: [GNU Bison 2.3] testsuite: 103 104 failed), Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/13
- Re: prologue alternatives,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/14
- Re: prologue alternatives, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/15
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/15
- Re: prologue alternatives, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/16
- Re: prologue alternatives, Joel E. Denny, 2006/09/16