Re: Mangling: grammar too permissive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mangling: grammar too permissive
- To: dehnert@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Mangling: grammar too permissive
- From: Martin von Loewis <loewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:20:19 +0200
> No, it's needed to be able to substitute for Ktype when we've
> already seen VKtype.
Ah, right.
> > 2. extra alternatives in <encoding-type>: In all cases where an
> > encoding-type can occur, it always identifies a
> > bare-function-type; it never is a type or a substitution on its
> > own. Therefore, I propose to remove the encoding-type, and replace
> > its two occurences with bare-function-type.
>
> No, <encoding-type> also encodes a <type> in the case of a vtable,
> where <name> is the <special-name> VT, and <type> is the relevant class
> type. (Though this could probably be fixed by other rearrangements.)
As I said, I'd prefer the other arrangement. As a matter of fact, I
didn't really grasp the idea that the top-level type could be used to
denote the type for the vtable. So even if this approach is used, the
documentation should be better, e.g. in the VT description
# <encoding-type> is vtable's class type
Also, a forward references could not hurt:
<encoding-type> ::= <type> # for vtables
::= <bare-function-type> # for functions
::= <substitution> # In what cases?
The <substitution> case refers to the substitution section, but
that does not talk about <encoding-type>s at all...
Regards,
Martin