On 22 Nov 2006, at 17:27, Joel E. Denny wrote:
Or vice versa: choosing a Unicode representation makes ASCII
unnecessary,
ecept for those poor guys that do not have an UTF-8 editor. But
then for this
latter, one might make separate Unicode-ASCII translators.
If the ASCII looks fine and is necessary anyway, why bother with
Unicode?
Don't know. I suggest to use Unicode when the ASCII isn't necessary
and looks awful.
Second, I don't see how this addresses the issue
we're discussing anyway: names for semantic values and locations.
Overuse of tokens may cause grammar conflicts.
That sounds nice in general, but I don't see a solution to our problem
developing.
You insist on using "( )", etc.
It has popped up from time [to time] in Help-Bison, and the last
time Akim seemed to be
interested
If you're referring to the discussion in March, I see that he asked
how it
would work, which I still don't understand. I saw no expression of
interest afterwards. Did I miss a message?
I saw no reaction after my EBNF proposal. This is why I cc him and
Paul Eggert, to see if there can be clarification. Should Bison have
EBNF sometime in the future or not, that is the question.
Hans Aberg
