Re: mangling question.

[dehnert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Dehnert)]

> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:31:05 -0800
> From: Alain Miniussi <alainm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I probably overlooked something, but I have a problem 
> understanding the mangling grammar:
> 
> <nested-name> ::= N <qualified-name> E
>     <qualified-name> ::= <CV-qualifier> <qualified-name>
>                      ::= <compound-name>
>                      ::= <substitution> // rule A
>     <compound-name> ::= <nesting-prefix> <unqualified-name>
>                    ::= <unqualified-name>
>                    ::= <substitution> // rule B
>     <nesting-prefix> ::= <nesting-prefix> <nesting-qualifier>
>                      ::= <nesting-qualifier>
>                      ::= <substitution>
>     <nesting-qualifier> ::= <namespace source-name>
>                         ::= <class-enum-name>
> 
> It seems to me that there are a few ambiguities (reduce/reduce)
> related with <substitution>, for example if we consider rules A and B.
> 
> Note that I just started looking at the mangling, maybe I have missed 
> something obvious in the text. (I haven't found anithing related qith
> this in the last mails).

Yes, it is ambiguous, but only in cases where the things it might be
substituted for are the same thing.  You should view the <substitution>
rules strictly as a notiational convenience for identifying the
components that may be substituted.  Does that help, or does your
concern go deeper than that?

Jim

-	    Jim Dehnert		dehnert@xxxxxxx
				(650)933-4272