Re: prologue alternatives

[Paul Eggert]

"Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
>> The
>> old way is messy and complicated, but at least it's standardized and
>> has well-known properties.
>
> Do these well-known properties include the way Bison puts %{...%} 
> sometimes in the header?

No, sorry, I was referring only to the yacc method.

> Any code related to the semantic type or to the location type goes in 
> %stype-code {...} or %ltype-code {...}, respectively.  This includes 
> dependencies, #define YYSTYPE, and #define YYLTYPE.  Any other code for 
> the header goes in %header {...}.  Any other code for the code file goes 
> in %code {...}.

That's simpler, thanks.  But why bother to distinguish %stype-code
from %ltype-code?  Can't we simplify things even further by having
%type-code { ... } that carries both sets of code?

Come to think of it, why bother to distinguish %type-code from
%header?  Wouldn't %header suffice?