Re: [PATCH] more on prologue alternatives

[Joel E. Denny]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Bonzini Paolo wrote:

> Well, you could say that you need only two instead of three: in my case it
> is "outside the parser class" (e.g. for imports) and "inside" (for
> methods used in the actions).  But they don't really map to header/code,
> so I'm using %{...%} respectively before/after %%.

I agree that header vs. code is not the best terminology for this Java 
issue.

> > 3. Change %start-header{...} to %type-code{...}.  For C/C++ users, this is 
> > the right place to put any code that is required by YYSTYPE or YYLTYPE.  
> > You probably don't need it in Java, but you could use it if you'd like to 
> > organize your output.
> 
> I don't like the %type-code name (constructive criticism in a couple
> of paragraphs!).

How about %dependencies{...}?  In Java, it could be used for your imports.  
%code{...} could be used for your parser methods.  %header{...} would have 
no meaning and could be disallowed for Java, right?

> > 4. Remove %before-header entirely.  We're not sure it's actually 
> > necessary.
> 
> I would put #include directives for the parser
> there in C (e.g. <stdlib.h>), since %before-header IIRC is just good
> old %{...%}.  But in the end putting them in %after-header wouldn't be
> a problem, right?

That's my thinking.

> A renaming proposal working for me would be %after-header -> %code, and
> %before-header -> %prolog, and likewise %header-code and %header-prolog.

I think Akim would like to get rid of %before-header for C/C++, and I can 
live without it as well.

To reduce confusion, I'd like not to use the word prologue since it 
already refers to %{...%} and all its baggage.

> This, plus letting these appear in the grammar section, would be just
> perfect.

Letting them appear in the grammar section should already be possible in 
CVS Bison.  Whether they appear there or in the definitions section does 
not affect what they do.