[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:28:14 +0200 |
At 10:48 +0200 2002/04/08, Akim Demaille wrote:
>Hans> In fact, settling for Unicode only might simplify the
>Hans> cross-compilation problem, as one then can handle it via code
>Hans> converters.
>
>such as the scanners.
No, the code converter is attached to the stream, not the lexer or parser.
The lexer/parser will be designed as though they do not know about any
other encoding than a single-width character Unicode encoding.
Hans Aberg
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, (continued)
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Paul Eggert, 2002/04/04
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Akim Demaille, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Paul Eggert, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Akim Demaille, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Paul Eggert, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Akim Demaille, 2002/04/08
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/08
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Akim Demaille, 2002/04/08
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens,
Hans Aberg <=
Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/02