On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Paul Eggert wrote: > "Joel E. Denny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > To keep things less confusing, the user should be advised to do things > > either the Yacc way or the new way with order-independent declarations. > > Yes, that makes sense. How about requiring that? I.e., report an > error if the user confusingly tries to use both methods. That way, we > don't have to define what happens after you shoot yourself in the > foot.
That might be best, and would be fine for my usage. However, I was imagining a user who just wants to add a %before-definitions and/or %after-definitions to an existing grammar file. Should he be forced to convert all his (other) prologue blocks to %before-header and %after-header? I guess we could go with the restriction and re-evaluate if someone complains. > One notational thought. Perhaps we should change "before-definitions" > to "start-header", and "after-definitions" to "end-header"? That > might help people remember better the relationships among the > %*-header directives. Also, it will give them the pattern "%*-header" > to remember the concepts by. Yes, that's good. I've been thinking someone might mistakenly use %before-definitions as the old Yacc pre-prologue. That's fine for the code file, but he might unexpectedly pollute his header that way. %start-header helps to clarify that it's part of the header. Joel
