Re: [RFC] 5.4 features for vote (long)
| From: | Rasmus Lerdorf | Date: | Tue, 21 Jun 2011 03:17:07 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] 5.4 features for vote (long) | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-53457@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 06/20/2011 08:09 PM, Felipe Pena wrote:
> I'm ok with this, I just think it's ugly to repeat the token name in
> the definition in the .y file. :P
>
> %token T_LNUMBER "'number' (T_LNUMBER)"
> %token T_STRING "'identifier' (T_STRING)"
Why 'identifier' and not 'string' or 'string-literal' there? People
know
what a string is. I am not sure that people know what an identifier is,
so in this case changing the error message from something that says
"expecting T_STRING" to "expecting identifier" isn't making the error
message any clearer as far as I am concerned. This is one of the reasons
that having the token name there is useful. It provides continuity with
the current error messages that people have grown used to. I think we
either need the token names, or we need more descriptive names printed.
-Rasmus