Re: [RFC] 5.4 features for vote (long)

Hello, On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 05:17, Rasmus Lerdorf <systems@php.net> wrote: > 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? For people using php, a string or a string literal is "foo" or 'foo'. T_STRING does not represent "foo" nor 'foo'. identifier seems to adequatly describe what it encompass. IMHO, it would even be better if the unnexpect part displayed the actual content: i.e. function 1() => Unexpected number '1' ... or function 1() => Unexpected '1'... Best, > 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 > -- Etienne Kneuss http://www.colder.ch