On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Joel E. Denny wrote:
> > Well, if we document how the splitting is done, then I figure they can't
> > complain too much. I certainly don't want to see Bison parse complex C++
> > constructs. Let the C++ compiler catch those errors.
>
> Wouldn't it be both easy and powerful to solve that namespace thing
> using "%define"s?
>
>
> What I have in mind is one %define each for begin and end of the
> namespace, something like this:
>
> %define "namespace_intro" "namespace Gnu { namespace Bison {"
> %define "namespace_outro" "} }"
>
> The default would be set to
>
> %define "namespace_intro" "namespace <prefix> {"
> %define "namespace_outro" "}"
I see this as more work for the user.
> If that's possible that would
> * take namespace parsing off Bison's shoulders and
When I spoke of Bison parsing complex C++ constructs, I was responding to
this:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Akim Demaille wrote:
> it's just that if we start looking at
> what it contains, someday someone might complain that we generated
> invalid C++ code instead of rejecting invalid prefixes.
I think Akim was worried that I might try to report syntactically invalid
namespace references. For example, "ns1::%bogus$::ns2". Leave that to
the compiler. We can document that Bison just splits on "::" blindly, and
that should be straightforward to implement. For syntactically valid
namespace references minus any leading "::", I believe this approach will
always work.
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> * be flexible at the same time.
Do you have some use cases in mind that we can't handle with the approach
we've been discussing?
_______________________________________________
[email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
