>>> "Paolo" == Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree with Tim. Bison should avoid as much as possible any
> *dependence* on the output language in the input (e.g. it would be
> crazy to change the definition of identifiers, or expecting [] instead
> of {} in a hypotetical Smalltalk parser), but this is just syntactic
> sugar for choosing a skeleton.
Sugar? In my book syntactic sugar means providing convenient
abbreviations. I fail to see that here.
But if that's a common demand, I won't stop you here. I just feel
like we're not KISS. I foresee the code that will be needed to report
that a given skeleton type does not exists for a given language, that
a given language is not supported (which will require browsing the
file system as I am against open-coding any material related to the
skeletons/languages in Bison etc.).
