Re: coding conventions

alexc@world.std.com (Alex Colvin)
11 Feb 2003 02:14:05 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
coding conventions a7244270@yahoo.com (2003-02-05)
Re: coding conventions alexc@world.std.com (2003-02-11)
Re: coding conventions a7244270@yahoo.com (2003-02-21)
Re: coding conventions s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl (2003-02-24)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: alexc@world.std.com (Alex Colvin)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 11 Feb 2003 02:14:05 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: 03-02-009
Keywords: yacc, practice
Posted-Date: 11 Feb 2003 02:14:05 EST

>I'm fairly new to this flex/bison stuff, and I was wondering - is
>there a recommended coding convention for flex/bison ? like for
>example should I have named the "subpart" differently, etc.


>procedure_decl:
> L200_GLOBAL procedure_decl_subpart
> | L200_EXTERNAL procedure_decl_subpart
> ;


>procedure_decl_subpart:
> L200_PROCEDURE L200_IDENTIFIER L200_SEMICOLON
> ;


I don't have any formal style guide, but I'll push the convention that the
yacc actions should be kept as short as possible, either an assignment or
a function call. Not only does long precedural code make the grammar hard
to follow, but you don't want to put anything you might need to debug in
your *.y file.


What's with the L200_...?


--
mac the naïf

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.