Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The other possibility, the one I prefer, is to make it syntactic but > more restricted: accept a single optional ID in the grammar (then of > course we have no problems with comments).
OK, thanks, your arguments make sense, and you talked me into it. One detail, though: what kind of identifier? Should we allow '::' for the sake of C++ namespace usage? I don't much use C++ so I'm not a good judge here. (It's hard to Google for usages of this form, I'm afraid.) I assume we don't want to allow \unnn and \Unnnnnnnn or multibyte letters and digits (valid in C identifiers), since it'd be hard to verify which combinations are valid. Yacc identifiers also allow '.'; should we allow that? Probably not. (Don't you just love this can of worms? :-)
