Re: proposal: simplify prologue alternatives into %code

[Paolo Bonzini]

> I think having two forms for the same thing would be less consistent and 
> less simple than my proposal.  On the other hand, throwing away the 
> default form and having only the named form for it is inconsistent with 
> the decision tree I described above, and therefore I don't think it makes 
> life any simpler for the user.

I would say that having the named form and the default form reflects an 
attitude that "the newbie has a easy default, the expert has full 
control", and puts the 4 blocks on the same level for the expert.  In 
particular, for the newbie that is learning the full syntax, it might 
help to understand that they are two pairs of blocks; your syntax might 
suggest that the 3 named blocks are a different kind than the unnamed one.

I don't have any strong opinion anyway.

Still, if you want to go with your proposed syntax, I think that the 
simplest thing to do (also considering the intuitiveness of using the 
feature in the skeletons) is to give the default "%code" an internal 
name, which is not documented; particularly since the same 
implementation can be shared with other features (as I did in the 
prototype patch I sent you) such as %initial-action or %union.

Paolo