> versioning One possible approach might be "part of spec" but "optional" and "not actively it use"? So present in schema and tests, to somewhat reduce the ch

> versioning One possible approach might be "part of spec" but "optional" and "not actively it use"? So present in schema and tests, to somewhat reduce the chance of getting locked into not having it by hypothetical others failing to support it. And easily available, so absence doesn't discourage any hypothetical interest. But without spending much time on it, absent non-hypothetical need. Maybe. > that same version number Hmm. Parser-runtime versioning would seem only lightly coupled with grammar-parser versioning? Unless there's a grammar-runtime coupling to express? EDIT: Ok, I was thinking of "grammar" in too general a sense, decoupled from choice of parser tech, rather than the usual "bison grammar tightly coupled to bison parser". Failure to RTFM. Grammar's `conflict:`, `inline:`, `word:`, `externals:` are all somewhat runtime coupled. Though perhaps looser than parser-runtime? It can be nice to flexibly move work between a compiler and its runtime, without affecting the external api.