Re: gnubol: New bison Grammar available (long)

[Tim Josling <tej@melbpc.org.au>]

I agree they are hard to read.

Probably the tk_ is because I am paranoid about namespace
pollution. I am happy to change to another standard as you
suggest if noone else objects. 

I also need a standard for productions (like sentence) and would
like a visible way to distinguigh them from tokens. Any
suggestions? 

Perhaps

Add : ADD Identifier To_opt Identifier Rounded_opt
;


Statement:
Add
|Subtract
| ...
;

ie tokens in caps, productions first character in caps. There are
some gray areas like "," and "comma" - what do you call them?

Tim Josling

RKRayhawk@aol.com wrote:
> 
> I have a simple question. Why are we naming tokens in the fashion of
> tk_tokenname?
> 
> WHy not just names like
> ADD
> PERFORM
> VARYING
> etc.?
> 
> Wouldn't the grammar be easier to read that way?
> 
> -Bob Rayhawk
> 
> --
> This message was sent through the gnu-cobol mailing list.  To remove yourself
> from this mailing list, send a message to majordomo@lusars.net with the
> words "unsubscribe gnu-cobol" in the message body.  For more information on
> the GNU COBOL project, send mail to gnu-cobol-owner@lusars.net.

--
This message was sent through the gnu-cobol mailing list.  To remove yourself
from this mailing list, send a message to majordomo@lusars.net with the
words "unsubscribe gnu-cobol" in the message body.  For more information on
the GNU COBOL project, send mail to gnu-cobol-owner@lusars.net.