On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:03 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 04:15:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Does anyone object to moving the symbol definition part to a file of its
> > > own that's inluded by both parser? Or does anyone have a better idea?
> >
> > AFAIK bison doesn't have an "include" capability, so I'm not sure how
> > you plan to make that work?
>
> You found the weak part in my idea. :-)
>
> How about a small perl script that is run before bison and creates the
> real grammar file?
man cpp ?
-------------
Hannu