Re: RFC: a name for the error token

[Akim Demaille]

Hi Paul!

Thanks for taking the time to answer!

> Le 26 avr. 2020 à 21:16, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> a écrit :
> 
> On 4/26/20 9:40 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> d. So it could be simply "YYerror", which does show it's a built-in symbol 
>> (as YYEOF and YYUNDEF), yet it does not follow the convention of uppercase 
>> for tokens.  Its symbol would be YYSYMBOL_YYerror of course.
>> 
>> 
>> I have been thinking about this issue for weeks, and the more I think about 
>> it, the more I believe (d) is the least ugly approach.
>> 
>> But maybe someone would have a better option?
> 
> How about YYERRATUM?  The error token corresponds more closely to the English
> word "erratum" than it does to the English word "error", as an erratum is an
> error in writing or printing, whereas an error can be a lot of other things.

Good point.

> (Or if you don't like that, how about YYEOW or YYEOWCH? :-)

I like these very much :)

> Anyway, the spelling doesn't matter all that much and YYerror would also be 
> fine.

I still prefer YYerror.  I do not like it, but it still feels like a local
minimum in the design space. And since you agree it would be ok, let's go
for it.

Thanks a lot, I really needed feedback.

Cheers!