Re: [RFC] %language declaration

[Akim Demaille]

>>> "Paolo" == Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> writes:

 > I agree with Tim.  Bison should avoid as much as possible any
 > *dependence* on the output language in the input (e.g. it would be
 > crazy to change the definition of identifiers, or expecting [] instead
 > of {} in a hypotetical Smalltalk parser), but this is just syntactic
 > sugar for choosing a skeleton.

Sugar?  In my book syntactic sugar means providing convenient
abbreviations.  I fail to see that here.

But if that's a common demand, I won't stop you here.  I just feel
like we're not KISS.  I foresee the code that will be needed to report
that a given skeleton type does not exists for a given language, that
a given language is not supported (which will require browsing the
file system as I am against open-coding any material related to the
skeletons/languages in Bison etc.).