Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's not clear to me, if you consider things like > > exp: exp '+' exp > exp -> exp '-' exp > > we have the same problem: where does the first rule end.
But we can insist on ";" after the first rule, too. Once the user's grammar contains "->", we can place any other restrictions that we like on the grammar; POSIX won't care. > I still think dropping the scanner hacks and moving towards using > the GLR parser is a better road. Yes, that could be true. But I suspect it's a bigger project, and in particular it will require considerably more testing. > But then, why -> instead of the more traditional `::='. Both are OK. Aack! Too many colons! Besides, I thought that right-arrow was more traditional than "::=". Didn't Chomsky use a right-arrow in 1956? (::::-) (Seriously: "::=" is fine with me too.)
