On Tue, 5 Dec 20006, Hans Aberg wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote: > > > Have you read the new manual section in CVS yet? > > I read the summary, and it said me nothing. I want to quickly know were > to put the stuff, not paving my way through pages and pages to find out > something that is trivial. What is "the summary" that you're referring to? There are summaries for each directive in the section "Bison Symbols" if that's what you need. You can also see just about the same text in "NEWS". They start with a brief abstract discussion and they describe the code placement. > 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? > > In Open Group Yacc lingo, it's called the "code file": > > > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/yacc.html > > > > I do not mean to say this is common C/C++ lingo. In C/C++ lingo, the term > > "source file" is ambiguous in my opinion. > > In the traditional Yacc setup, I think one dos not use a header file, but > is doing a #inlcude on the lexer .c file. So perhaps "code file" means any > file containing code, not speficially the header/code setup. That is not the meaning in the Open Group document above as is clear from reading the first paragraph there. Also, see "OUTPUT FILES". > > Nearly every word in English is overloaded, and we have to pick something. > > There's been no better suggestion so far in my opinion. > > So what were the other suggestions? Look in Bison 2.3a NEWS for an example that was accepted at first and then rejected later. There have been numerous other rejected proposals, but I don't see the point in revisiting them all again. > You and Akim seem to have worked mainly with the C- pe subset of C++, > which result in too limited solutions if commands are automated like this. How is the C/C++ subset relevant here?