From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1228FBB9C for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:43:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j8F8h8OO027031 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:43:08 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA14965 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:43:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from first.in-berlin.de (dsl-084-059-047-073.arcor-ip.net [84.59.47.73]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j8F8h7Ja025805 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:43:07 +0200 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 30555152550; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:56:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:56:17 +0200 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list Subject: ocamlyacc and names of rules Message-ID: <20050914215617.GA558@first.in-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4329341C.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4329341B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 bandel:01 oliver:01 in-berlin:01 ocamlyacc:01 grammar:01 ocamlyacc:01 ocaml:01 bug:01 ocaml:01 grammar:01 ocaml's:01 bandel:01 in-berlin:01 ...:98 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_06_12, FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Hello, I have used the name "object" for a grammar rule in ocamlyacc. This produced parse errors with OCaml 3.08.0 - is this a known bug? Or is it "correct" bahaviour, because it's an OCaml identifier ("object")? I thought the grammar rules can be named indepenently of the OCaml's reserved words. Didn't tried rules named "let" or something... ...should be also impossible?! Ciao, Oliver Bandel -- The Laban Scale Document-Generator: http://me.in-berlin.de/~first/labscalgen-invoke.cgi