warning: multi-line comment (why?)

[Joern Rennecke]

> Ah, now I see what you're getting at.  The \\n case reports the
> beginning of the in-progress token; missing \n reports the col number.
> Not sure it's worth changing; it's not as if the location is in any
> doubt.  Do you think it's worth the extra overhead to get a correctly
> reported column number for unexpected EOF?

I don't know.  But we should be aware that we are deciding about this.
I think it's OK if you leave out the coloumn number when you realise that
you don't know it, but it is dubious to report an incorrect one.