On master only.
From 5ad90d528dc5feedb0c1d8afe82719440ec17217 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Akim Demaille <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:41:21 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] todo: short term
* TODO (syntax_error, variable names): New.
---
TODO | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index 216c97f..c3aac31 100644
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -1,6 +1,28 @@
-*- outline -*-
* Short term
+** Use syntax_error from the scanner?
+This would provide a means to raise syntax error from function called
+from the scanner. Actually, there is no good solution to report a
+lexical error in general. Usually they are kept at the scanner level
+only, ignoring the guilty token. But that might not be the best bet,
+since we don't benefit from the syntactic error recovery.
+
+We still have the possibility to return an invalid token number, which
+does the trick. But then the error message from the parser is poor
+(something like "unexpected $undefined"). Since the scanner probably
+already reported the error, we should directly enter error-recovery,
+without reporting the error message (i.e., YYERROR's semantics).
+
+Back to lalr1.cc (whose name is now quite unfortunate, since it also
+covers lr and ielr), if we support exceptions from yylex, should we
+propose a lexical_error in addition to syntax_error? Should they have
+a common root, say parse_error? Should syntax_error be renamed
+syntactic_error for consistency with lexical_error?
+
+** Variable names.
+What should we name `variant' and `lex_symbol'?
+
** Use b4_symbol in all the skeleton
Then remove the older system, including the tables generated by
output.c
--
1.6.4.3
