On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > I still wonder if ISO EBNF is the right language. Aren't most
> > Lex and Yacc users more familiar with notations like "(...)*", "(...)?",
> > and "(...)+"?
>
> Yes, quite likely. I wouldn't be a slave to ISO EBNF (particularly
> since we're already incompatible with it :-), but it can't hurt to be
> inspired by it.
Then we need not fuss over [] being for options anymore.
> > The argument there isn't about the choice of "/" or "#" or "()" or "[]".
> > It's about the choice of "!" (or "-" in the current discussion) to mean
> > nothing. I prefer the empty string to mean nothing.
>
> OK, how about this idea? If rules use the syntax S$A to mean that the
> symbol S has a value that can be called $A within an action, then
> let's use plain S to mean the symbol doesn't have a value.
What about default names? Must the user write?
grammar$grammar: rules$rules decls$decls epilogue$epilogue {
$grammar = new_grammar ($rule, $decls, $epilogue);
}
;
I prefer:
grammar: rules decls epilogue {
$grammar = new_grammar ($rule, $decls, $epilogue);
}
;
Also, why $ now instead of #? $ makes it look like it works for values
and not locations.
