Re: RFC: "end of file" vs. "end of input" (was: Bison 3.5.90 released)

Akim Demaille wrote:

> > I'd say it depends. My parsers read from files just as well as from
> > command-line arguments (cf. sed/awk) or user input (e.g. an
> > interactive calculator). So I'll keep my slightly more general
> > wording (you might consider making this Bison's default, but I guess
> > it'd be an unexpected spurious change to some users):
> > 
> >  %token END 0 "end of input"
> 
> I was wondering about that.  I really hesitated between both, and
> went for "end of file", because it seems more conventional, albeit
> less general.  Also, I realized that in French I would never use
> the French translation of "end of input"; but maybe I'm biased.

In de it would be alright I think. Anyway, "input" might not be the
best possible term, since it's from Bison's perspective rather than
the user's. I just think "file" is plain wrong when the input is not
a file, but I'm open to hear a better wording.

Regards,
Frank