Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question

Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com>
12 Nov 2005 16:11:36 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Cygwin 'byacc' question andreytarasevich@hotmail.com (Andrey Tarasevich) (2005-11-02)
Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question kst-u@mib.org (Keith Thompson) (2005-11-04)
Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question bill@qswtools.com (Bill Cox) (2005-11-08)
Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question toby@telegraphics.com.au (toby) (2005-11-12)
Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question andreytarasevich@hotmail.com (Andrey Tarasevich) (2005-11-12)
Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question dickey@saltmine.radix.net (Thomas Dickey) (2005-12-19)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 12 Nov 2005 16:11:36 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
References: 05-11-030 05-11-046
Keywords: yacc
Posted-Date: 12 Nov 2005 16:11:36 EST

Bill Cox wrote:
> ...
>> As a workaround, I can probably use a different prefix for each
>> parser, instead of the default 'yy', thus eliminating the name
>> conflict, but it is still strange to have the global namespace
>> polluted with essentially local names. Any ideas?
>
> The current bison version has a --name-prefix=<prefix> option,
> and it's probably not much trouble to switch from byacc to bison.
> I've switched grammars both ways in the past.
>
> And the latest Linux byacc that Google shows me has a very similar
> "-p <prefix>" option.
> [The -p option has been available for a very long time. -John]


I have no problem changing the prefix in byacc. But that's not the
issue. I just want to know the rationale behind that strange change in
the declaration format, if there's any. The old one made sense. The
new one doesn't. Am I missing something? Does anyone actually use
byacc anymore?


--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

Post a followup to this message

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