Re: RFC: rename parser_class_name as api.parser.class

[Akim Demaille]

> Le 3 janv. 2019 à 18:45, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> a écrit :
> 
>> Le 2 janv. 2019 à 08:13, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> a écrit :
>> 
>> We've never finished cleaning up the muscle names.  If D really makes it 
>> into Bison, it would be sad that they use such inconsistent names, so let's 
>> finish this soon.
>> 
>> I'm not very happy with api.parser.class, if someone has a better idea, 
>> please step forward!  I have avoided api.parser.type, because api.value.type 
>> and api.location.type are not about declaring a type, but using a type.  I 
>> think that api.parser.class.name is too long.  But we do have 
>> api.value.union.name already.
>> 
>> So api.parser.class.name could be better, but I'd be happy to have opinions.
> 
> Installed.

There's a bunch of similar %define variables that we should rename: public, 
extends, etc.  They come from the Java skeleton.  What do you think it should 
be:

public -> api.parser.public  or api.parser.class.public
extends
implements
abstract
final
strictfp
annotations