Le 29 juil. 06 à 07:13, Joel E. Denny a écrit :
+ Clean up handling of %destructor for the end token (token 0).
Nice patch. Since we are making BOF and EOF more like
regular tokens, we might be able to simplify the skeletons
even further by attaching the initial-action as a regular
(mi
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote:
>
> > I went ahead. As far as I can tell, all the skeletons now (after my
> > uncommitted patch below) consistently pop EOF one time upon a successful
> > parse.
>
> I'd like to commit this patch. I'll do s
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> I went ahead. As far as I can tell, all the skeletons now (after my
> uncommitted patch below) consistently pop EOF one time upon a successful
> parse.
I'd like to commit this patch. I'll do so in a few days if there are no
objections.
> I don't u
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see its
> > destructor called, just as in glr.
>
> I'll implement whatever we decide for glr.c. Maybe someone else can
> handle yacc.c?
I went ahead. As far as I can tell, all the skeletons
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Akim Demaille wrote:
> I'd like to see its
> destructor called, just as in glr.
I'll implement whatever we decide for glr.c. Maybe someone else can
handle yacc.c?
> As a matter of fact, I have considered adding a BOF in complement of
> EOF: it seems that this token would al
Le 9 juil. 06 à 17:17, Joel E. Denny a écrit :
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Akim Demaille wrote:
A friend of mine was using END in his grammars in a very specific
place (he was making error recovery right before END), that's why
I didn't disable it. Sure, it's wrong to play with it, but quickly
enoug
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Akim Demaille wrote:
> A friend of mine was using END in his grammars in a very specific
> place (he was making error recovery right before END), that's why
> I didn't disable it. Sure, it's wrong to play with it, but quickly
> enough you have a grammar that generates an empty
Le 8 juil. 06 à 17:08, Joel E. Denny a écrit :
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Frans Englich wrote:
No, I don't have a need to put END in my grammar nor give it a
semantic value,
I can't think of a need either. The results look buggy with the
current
implementation, so maybe Bison should report an
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Frans Englich wrote:
> No, I don't have a need to put END in my grammar nor give it a semantic
> value,
I can't think of a need either. The results look buggy with the current
implementation, so maybe Bison should report an error for this usage.
> but I need to signal it
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 15:01, Frans Englich wrote:
> I am using a hand-written tokenizer unfortunately(would be more practical
> to use Flex), and is using yytokentype in order to increase type safety of
> the code.
>
> A problem arrives when I need to return EOF, the '0' token. It requires me
>
I am using a hand-written tokenizer unfortunately(would be more practical to
use Flex), and is using yytokentype in order to increase type safety of the
code.
A problem arrives when I need to return EOF, the '0' token. It requires me to
engage in static_cast'ing 0 to yytokentype, which is ugly
11 matches
Mail list logo
