Re: %union ... {

[Akim Demaille]

Le 16 juin 06 à 19:54, Paul Eggert a écrit :

> Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > The other possibility, the one I prefer, is to make it syntactic but
> > more restricted: accept a single optional ID in the grammar (then of
> > course we have no problems with comments).
>
> OK, thanks, your arguments make sense, and you talked me into it.
>
> One detail, though: what kind of identifier?  Should we allow '::' for
> the sake of C++ namespace usage?  I don't much use C++ so I'm not a
> good judge here.  (It's hard to Google for usages of this form, I'm
> afraid.)
>
> I assume we don't want to allow \unnn and \Unnnnnnnn or multibyte
> letters and digits (valid in C identifiers), since it'd be hard to
> verify which combinations are valid.
>
> Yacc identifiers also allow '.'; should we allow that?  Probably not.
>
> (Don't you just love this can of worms?  :-)

:)

It's just that I don't think we should worry that much for a careless
user.  If she uses '.', or even '*' (sometimes I wish we added *, +, and
? in the char set), then it's up to her.  After all, you raised ::
for C++, you could have kept . for other languages.

If we want to set the user really free, then let's extend the grammar
with more than just ID, for instance a STRING, or even BRACED_CODE.

%union {my_weird::\u1234nion} { int val; };