On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Hans Aberg wrote: > > Ok, I think I miscommunicated. The ambiguity I meant is whether `b/c' is > > the same as `b/ c' as discussed below. `c :b' and `c:b' have the same > > issue.... > > I think there should be normal tokenization the Bison .l file, with a general > rule, stripping out space and newlines. I think this leads to the most > intuitive grammar.
I was thinking of the human reader not Bison's scanner. > The %destructor is only needed with output language C. Currently, it's also useful for C++. There could be other target languages some day that need it as well > > If we use `:' for value names ... > > WHat do you mean by value names, here? Is that the semantic value variables? Yes. > > You mean exp:r? I don't see how that's easier. > > It depends what comes first in the definition. It is easier implementing with > defined names first, and then the definee. I don't see how either is easier to implement than the other. > > How do you declare that the semantic value is unused but still use the > > location? Will we make the gamble that this is never necessary? > > I haven't considered this. Now that you mention this, I think some special > notation might be the prudent way. The location value will probably be used > more often with Bison improved parser diagnostics. This suggests that one > indeed needs some special way to indicate it. Ok, I hope you'll respond to my other email where I propose a more concise alternative to exp($sum, @sum).
