Sorry for the late reply.
Akim Demaille wrote:
> >> I think the "@var{char}" option is missing in the "%token" and
> >> "%left" cases.
> >
> > Also "@var{string}" in "%left".
>
> Thanks! I had never realized we could write `%token '+'`. I also didn't
> know we could give a string alias to a char-token. But I'll leave it as is.
We can also set a token number, but it must match the codepoint, e.g.
%token 'a' 97
works, but:
%token 'a' 98
doesn't ("redefining code of token 'a'").
So should this be allowed at all?
> I think this is right now, do you agree?
Almost, I think. Reading the new wording, it looks like this is
allowed, but it doesn't seem to be ("unexpected integer literal").
Should it be?
%token a "a"
%left "a" 42
