On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Hans Aberg wrote:
> Wordings like:
>
> %code {code }
> Other than semantic actions, this is probably the most common place you should
> write
> verbatim code for the parser implementation.
>
> Does not really tell what the command does.
I intended it to help you remember the concept of the directive. There
are sentences afterwards that explain what it does at the low-level.
> > > My intent was to get my programs working for current Bison, now that I can
> > > use %define, but reality prevents me from attaining it.
> >
> > You can't download 2.3a for the %define extension? Or you want the %code,
> > %requires, etc. directives from CVS?
>
> I have it, and got started. But "reality" refers to unrelated stuff preventing
> me to work on it. Then, these discussions started, me being half-way trying to
> get my project working with current Bison.
Ah. We can stop if you like. :)
> To me, it looked as though "code file" just means a file containing code.
Without keeping the Open Group spec in mind, yes, I can see that it sounds
that way. It's the same point I made about "source file". At the moment,
I can't think of any name that's unambiguous for this purpose.
However, we're pretty far off topic now. I just meant to point out that,
if you've read the Yacc spec, it seems logical that %code and %code-top
put code in the source/code/implementation/tab.c file.
> Because I use a polymorphic class hierarchy, with a special Flex header setup,
> and that was certainly not in the consideration of the work done with Bison so
> far. So my worry is getting stuff that complicates the implementation of this
> with standard Bison even further.
If you find an example where the new directives will complicate reasonable
code, I'd appreciate a post about it. However, it's not likely to go far
without an alternative proposal.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
