Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's just that I don't think we should worry that much for a careless
> user.
In this particular case, since it's not too much trouble, let's worry
it, since we want Bison to be a drop-in replacement for BSD Yacc (even
for careless users :-).
> If we want to set the user really free, then let's extend the grammar
> with more than just ID, for instance a STRING, or even BRACED_CODE.
I don't see why that would be useful, and in the case of BRACED_CODE
it might even lead to weird behavior by Bison if the user forgets the
second % in "%union { ... } %{ .... %}". Since this is purely for
compatibility I think that all we really need to support is what's
used by BSD Yacc + C grammars, or perhaps BSD Yacc + C++ if some
people actually use that combination. If you think it unlikely that
C++ programers use "%union foo::bar {...}" then let's just support
single identifiers; that should be enough.
