[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Apr 2002 10:12:38 +0200 |
At 10:01 +0200 2002/04/08, Akim Demaille wrote:
>Hans> One ends up the question of defining which encodings the parser
>Hans> and lexer should be able to handle.
...
>As for the parsers, the answer is simple: none.
Well, the Bison generated parser already supports (or makes use of) two.
In fact, settling for Unicode only might simplify the cross-compilation
problem, as one then can handle it via code converters.
Hans Aberg
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, (continued)
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Akim Demaille, 2002/04/04
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/04
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Paul Eggert, 2002/04/04
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Akim Demaille, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Paul Eggert, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Akim Demaille, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Paul Eggert, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/05
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Akim Demaille, 2002/04/08
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens,
Hans Aberg <=
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Akim Demaille, 2002/04/08
- Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/08
Re: RFC: enum instead of #define for tokens, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/02