[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:36:28 -0400 (EDT) |
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > >>> "JED" == Joel E Denny <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > %define api.push_pull "push|pull|both"
> > >> > %define api.pure "true||false"
> > >>
> > >> Might be an idea; but what I dislike is the repetition between
> > "push_pull" and
> > >> the argument.
> >
> > > Yeah, that's been bugging me a little too. Can we think of a precise
> > term
> > > for push vs. pull?
> >
> > mode?
> > call?
> > feed?
> > tokens?
> > scanner?
> >
> > %define api.token pull
>
> What do you think of api.token_feed?
For Bison, purity primarily affects another aspect of how tokens are fed
to the parser, so token_feed seems too general. I think we may be in a
situation where there just isn't any precedent other than the phrase "push
vs. pull", so push_pull may be the clearest name for the user. Thoughts?