[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: quick bison Q
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: quick bison Q |
Date: |
Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:47:24 -0800 |
> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 10:26:37 -0600
> From: David Durham <address@hidden>
>
> I really don't think that bison should have to worry about what they
> mean. It could just find what's between the union keyword and the
> {, remove all the whitespace from that sequence of chars and define
> that as the character sequence of the typename for the union.
I suppose that is what Bison will have to do. What a pain.
> On the otherhand, you could check what bison 1.35
It allowed any sequence of characters other than '{', which (as far as
I can tell) violates POSIX. For example, the following Yacc program
conforms to POSIX, and when compiled and run should exit with status
0; but with Bison 1.35 there is a compile-time error message due to
the comment being misparsed.
%union /* A valid Yacc comment that is not a valid C comment *\
/ because it has *-backslash-newline-/ in it */
{
int ival;
};
%{
int yylex (void) { return -1; }
%}
%%
s:;
Fixing this bug isn't that hard, but it's not trivial either. Sigh.
> I'm not sure what is meant by implementation-defined letter? Is that
> like a non-US-english character?
Yes.