Use the correct conversion specifier for size_t.

[bison.git] / TODO

diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index 5ae4f707c48e2a6de681721e3589deadd5ab4b47..c3aac3172ecea9b85a1bd07eeec7828589a60ff0 100644 (file)
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -1,6 +1,28 @@
 -*- outline -*-
 
 * Short term
 -*- outline -*-
 
 * Short term

+** Use syntax_error from the scanner?
+This would provide a means to raise syntax error from function called
+from the scanner.  Actually, there is no good solution to report a
+lexical error in general.  Usually they are kept at the scanner level
+only, ignoring the guilty token.  But that might not be the best bet,
+since we don't benefit from the syntactic error recovery.
+
+We still have the possibility to return an invalid token number, which
+does the trick.  But then the error message from the parser is poor
+(something like "unexpected $undefined").  Since the scanner probably
+already reported the error, we should directly enter error-recovery,
+without reporting the error message (i.e., YYERROR's semantics).
+
+Back to lalr1.cc (whose name is now quite unfortunate, since it also
+covers lr and ielr), if we support exceptions from yylex, should we
+propose a lexical_error in addition to syntax_error?  Should they have
+a common root, say parse_error?  Should syntax_error be renamed
+syntactic_error for consistency with lexical_error?
+
+** Variable names.
+What should we name `variant' and `lex_symbol'?
+

 ** Use b4_symbol in all the skeleton
 Then remove the older system, including the tables generated by
 output.c
 ** Use b4_symbol in all the skeleton
 Then remove the older system, including the tables generated by
 output.c


@@ -15,8 +37,6 @@ I have seen messages like the following from GCC.
 <built-in>:0: fatal error: opening dependency file .deps/libltdl/argz.Tpo: No such file or directory
 
 
 <built-in>:0: fatal error: opening dependency file .deps/libltdl/argz.Tpo: No such file or directory
 
 

-** Document %define assert
-

 ** Discuss about %printer/%destroy in the case of C++.
 It would be very nice to provide the symbol classes with an operator<<
 and a destructor.  Unfortunately the syntax we have chosen for
 ** Discuss about %printer/%destroy in the case of C++.
 It would be very nice to provide the symbol classes with an operator<<
 and a destructor.  Unfortunately the syntax we have chosen for


@@ -56,6 +76,22 @@ number for the error token, which POSIX wants to be 256, but which
 Bison might renumber if the user used number 256.  Keep fix and doc?
 Throw away?
 
 Bison might renumber if the user used number 256.  Keep fix and doc?
 Throw away?
 

+Also, why don't we output the token name of the error token in the
+output?  It is explicitly skipped:
+
+      /* Skip error token and tokens without identifier.  */
+      if (sym != errtoken && id)
+
+Of course there are issues with name spaces, but if we disable we have
+something which seems to be more simpler and more consistent instead
+of the special case YYERRCODE.
+
+   enum yytokentype {
+     error = 256,
+     // ...
+   };
+
+

 We could (should?) also treat the case of the undef_token, which is
 numbered 257 for yylex, and 2 internal.  Both appear for instance in
 toknum:
 We could (should?) also treat the case of the undef_token, which is
 numbered 257 for yylex, and 2 internal.  Both appear for instance in
 toknum:


@@ -180,6 +216,13 @@ parser") refers to the current `output' format.
 
 * Report
 
 
 * Report
 

+** Figures
+Some statistics about the grammar and the parser would be useful,
+especially when asking the user to send some information about the
+grammars she is working on.  We should probably also include some
+information about the variables (I'm not sure for instance we even
+specify what LR variant was used).
+

 **  GLR
 How would Paul like to display the conflicted actions?  In particular,
 what when two reductions are possible on a given lookahead token, but one is
 **  GLR
 How would Paul like to display the conflicted actions?  In particular,
 what when two reductions are possible on a given lookahead token, but one is


@@ -292,7 +335,8 @@ this issue.  Does anybody have it?
 Some history of Bison and some bibliography would be most welcome.
 Are there any Texinfo standards for bibliography?
 
 Some history of Bison and some bibliography would be most welcome.
 Are there any Texinfo standards for bibliography?
 

-
+** %printer
+Wow, %printer is not documented.  Clearly mark YYPRINT as obsolete.

 
 * Java, Fortran, etc.
 
 
 * Java, Fortran, etc.
 


@@ -413,8 +457,8 @@ Equip the parser with a means to create the (visual) parse tree.
 
 -----
 
 
 -----
 

-Copyright (C) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008 Free Software Foundation,
-Inc.
+Copyright (C) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008-2009 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.

 
 This file is part of Bison, the GNU Compiler Compiler.
 
 
 This file is part of Bison, the GNU Compiler Compiler.