Quoting skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > For the same reason, dssl's probably need 'private' > nonterminals.
This is quite desirable since one may want to open two independent syntax extensions at the same time that both use a same non terminal unintentionally (i.e. that happen to have the same name in both grammars) for different purposes. In this case, internally, there should be one distinct non terminal for each grammar. I think that by default the non terminals should be private. And there should be a way to: 1) allow a given non terminal to be extended when one define the grammar extension (declare the non terminal as public). 2) specify that a non terminal is intended to extend the non terminal of the same name of a given grammar (that has to be previously opened). Emmanuel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Felix-language mailing list Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
