On 5 Dec 2006, at 23:30, Joel E. Denny wrote:
The problem is that different languages use different paradigms,
and it
m,ay
not be possible to do this stuff in that context then.
Until we know what those languages are, I'm not sure how to
handle them.
So then you cannot produce a unified commend set.
Potentially, but I'm not inclined to complicate the existing
directives as
we grope in the dark trying to accommodate future target languages
that we
haven't even identified yet.
This is what I am saying: you may already have done that by the
current commands.
I propose to keep language specific, low-level names, until one can
see what features are language independent, and then succesively
replace them.
The point is that a name like %provides sounds as thouh it has
something to do
with the sematics to do, when in reality, it is a language
specific file
setup.
It does have something to do with semantics, ...
The language specific parts of the semantics implementation.
and the low-level details
vary with the target language.
So what happens if one uses a polymorphic hierarchy, with a different
header structure to accomodate for that?
I mainly worried getting commands, hard to understand, conflicting or
not usable with the uses I may need.
Hans Aberg
_______________________________________________
help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison