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

Reply via email to