> Le 17 juin 2018 à 16:33, Rici Lake a écrit :
>
> Although unrelated to this proposal, I would also favour allowing
>
> %%
> nonterminal: rhs
>
> as an alternative to
>
> %type nonterminal
> %%
> nonterminal: rhs
FTR, the more I contemplate this idea, the more I like it.
Unfortunately
Akim Demaille wrote:
> Wrt to the symbol constructor, you are right to be worried: I don't
> consider it (so far?) to be part of the public API. I do understand
> something like it is needed, but I don't like that it looks safe
> to use.
>
> Would you be ok with parser::unsafe_make_symbol, or
