[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bison 1.30f
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: Bison 1.30f |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:16:31 +0100 |
At 12:57 -0800 2001/12/12, Paul Eggert wrote:
>Yes, the current output works fine if your .y file doesn't use any of
>the symbols reserved by bison.simple. But haberg's point is that
>(with C++) you shouldn't need to reserve _any_ symbols, except for yy*
>and YY* symbols.
>
>I think he's a bit off, as I think the code still must reserve a few
>standard macro symbols like EOF and NULL in some non-default cases.
>But the rest of his point is a valid one.
I am not sure what you are speaking about here: I just want the C++
compiled parser to not imposing any "using std::xxx" directives, which
happens if one includes C-compatibility headers.
EOF and NULL are C/C++ preprocessor macros, and thus do not even exist by
the time the C++ compiler start looking at the code: Thus they do not have
anything to do with namespaces, which is a C++ construct.
Hans Aberg
- Re: Bison 1.30f, (continued)
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/11
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/11
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/12
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/12
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/12
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/11
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Akim Demaille, 2001/12/12
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Akim Demaille, 2001/12/12
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/12
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/12
- Re: Bison 1.30f,
Hans Aberg <=
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/12
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/13
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Akim Demaille, 2001/12/13
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/13
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/13
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/14
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/14
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/14
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/14
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/15