Re: FYI: default %printer/%destructor

[Joel E. Denny]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Hans Aberg wrote:

> > So, something like:
> > 
> >   a(name1): b c() d(name2[@,#]) e(name3[$,#,%])
> > 
> > Still ugly, but I like it better than ($#%name), which looks like one long
> > cryptic variable.
> 
> I do not know. Perhaps use "{}" instead of "[]", to indicate it is sets, if
> not conflicting with action "{}".

Yeah, something like that.

> As long as it does not close any doors, if some of the other stuff needs to be
> implemented, whatever it may be.

I've been thinking about your comment about parentheses.  It's conceivable 
that Bison may one day want to use parentheses to group symbols as in EBNF 
syntax.  More importantly, that's the customary usage of parentheses that 
I suspect many users are familiar with in a grammar, so our proposed usage 
may be misleading.  Why not brackets instead?

  a[name1]: b c[] address@hidden

This would also encourage your braces suggestion should we ever need 
attributes in addition to value and location:

  a[name1]: b c[] d[name2{@,#}] e[name3{$,#,%}]

I hope we don't need that.