On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Hans Aberg wrote:
> The proposal I made does not use "{ }", except in Bison actions.
Sorry, I was thinking of ISO EBNF.
> > Do you have a specific proposal in mind?
>
> I already gave one: using U+2192 '???', which in ASCII looks like "->".
First, given you've still chosen an ASCII representation, I don't see the
benefit of Unicode here. Second, I don't see how this addresses the issue
we're discussing anyway: names for semantic values and locations.
> You seem to have made your mind about
> these variables, and want to adapt the other stuff around it. I wonder if this
> is wise: if clashes can be avoided that way, the combination might be
> cumbersome.
I tried considering alternatives, but I think it may be a lost cause.
More importantly, when it comes to EBNF, I'm not sure it's worthwhile.
Do you know of someone who's actually going to contribute EBNF support to
Bison?
