On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:42 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>>> There's one thing worth clarifying: when i say "syntax changes", i >>>> mean "changes in how user input looks like". So a renaming of a >>>> command is a syntax change to me (despite the fact that no grammar >>>> rules change). >>>> That's probably confusing - what word should i use when i mean >>>> "changes in how user input looks like"? >>> >>> No idea. What we have under the umbrella of "syntax discussion" >>> contains three things: lexical units, grammar and vocabulary, mostly >>> implemented in lexer.ll, parser.yy, and *.ly respectively. In order to >>> keep syntax predictable, we want to be able to solve most problems just >>> by extending the vocabulary. That means that lexical units and grammar >>> should be as generic, powerful, and simple as possible. Specialized >>> lexical modes take power from the vocabulary. We want to avoid them as >>> much as possible given our historic constraints. >> >> I completely agree with this. I have been giving some people a hard >> time in this discussion, but that is primarily for wanting to mess >> with either lexer.ll or parser.yy. As long as you don't that, I will >> not object fiercely to what syntax proposal anyone comes up with. > > Actually, is there a particular reason we are generating a C parser > rather than a C++ parser? The implications regarding marking and > garbage collection of semantic values are rather awful.
Right; all that should go away with guile v2 though, which uses Boehm GC > Probably historic because Bison did not use to come with C++ skeleton > files? Correct. The best we had was the pure_parser option. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
