On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> Le 30 sept. 07 ? 09:00, Joel E. Denny a ?crit :
>
> > > "foo::", etc.?
> >
> > This seems like an error to me.
>
> Sure! But who should catch it?
We have facilities for the skeletons to call warn, complain, or fatal.
> Should we accept a leading ::?
I think so. I see it as redundant but not erroneous.
> > Other than that, isn't it just a matter of splitting on "::"? Am I
> > forgetting something?
>
> No, I don't think you do, it's just that if we start looking at
> what it contains, someday someone might complain that we generated
> invalid C++ code instead of rejecting invalid prefixes.
Well, if we document how the splitting is done, then I figure they can't
complain too much. I certainly don't want to see Bison parse complex C++
constructs. Let the C++ compiler catch those errors.
> And since
> you always did things perfectly well, I suspected you might want
> to go for it :)
Why thanks!
> BTW, for a start it might be very useful to use a syncline just
> before the prefix uses.
Ok.
_______________________________________________
help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison