On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Hans Aberg wrote: > Wordings like: > > %code {code } > Other than semantic actions, this is probably the most common place you should > write > verbatim code for the parser implementation. > > Does not really tell what the command does.
I intended it to help you remember the concept of the directive. There are sentences afterwards that explain what it does at the low-level. > > > My intent was to get my programs working for current Bison, now that I can > > > use %define, but reality prevents me from attaining it. > > > > You can't download 2.3a for the %define extension? Or you want the %code, > > %requires, etc. directives from CVS? > > I have it, and got started. But "reality" refers to unrelated stuff preventing > me to work on it. Then, these discussions started, me being half-way trying to > get my project working with current Bison. Ah. We can stop if you like. :) > To me, it looked as though "code file" just means a file containing code. Without keeping the Open Group spec in mind, yes, I can see that it sounds that way. It's the same point I made about "source file". At the moment, I can't think of any name that's unambiguous for this purpose. However, we're pretty far off topic now. I just meant to point out that, if you've read the Yacc spec, it seems logical that %code and %code-top put code in the source/code/implementation/tab.c file. > Because I use a polymorphic class hierarchy, with a special Flex header setup, > and that was certainly not in the consideration of the work done with Bison so > far. So my worry is getting stuff that complicates the implementation of this > with standard Bison even further. If you find an example where the new directives will complicate reasonable code, I'd appreciate a post about it. However, it's not likely to go far without an alternative proposal. _______________________________________________ help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison