Hans, >You are not processing the C language, but some other language, with the >context dependencies of the C language removed.
Correct. I only claim to be processing C syntax on a single statement/declaration basis (and then only at the visible source level).. > Perhaps check the newsgroup >comp.comilers for better input on that problem. I am a regular reader of that news group. >>Good alternative suggestion. But this still requires tree rewriting >>after the expression has been parsed. My %gooa option proposal >>avoids this grammar violence. > >Featuritis should be posted in bug-bison. You can only expect to get such >features into Bison if there is someone willing to volunteer doing the work. I have been looking at the source. You never know... >Alternatively, you might introduce a new token-name both for type-names and >number-names. I.e., instead of >%token type-name number-name >you write >%token token-type-name >%% >type-name: token-type-name; >number-name: token-type-name; > >You then get a correct GLR parse, and can try to sort out the ambiguity >later. I don't understand what you are getting at here. derek -- Derek M Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667 Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Applications Standards Conformance Testing http://www.knosof.co.uk _______________________________________________ Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
