[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:49:38 -0400 (EDT) |
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > + Replace `%push-parser' and `%push-pull-parser' with
> > + `%define push_pull "push"' and `%define push_pull "both"'.
> > + `%define push_pull "pull"' is the default.
>
> Good idea. What about "%define interface" or "%define api" instead?
There are so many potential orthogonal issues related to interface/API.
For example, I've been thinking that %pure-parser ought to be deprecated
in favor of a %define variable as well. Impure vs. pure is orthogonal to
pull vs. push.
I've also been thinking that some %define variables could be organized in
a sort of hierarchy. For example, in my offline work, I have stuff like
`%define lr.default_rules' and `%define lr.lookahead_merging' to affect LR
parser table construction. Maybe we should have something like:
%define api.push_pull "push|pull|both"
%define api.pure "true||false"
What do you think?
- %push-* -> %define push_pull, Joel E. Denny, 2007/09/25
- Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/09/25
- Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull,
Joel E. Denny <=
- Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/09/25
- Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull, Joel E. Denny, 2007/09/25
- Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull, Akim Demaille, 2007/09/28
- Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull, Joel E. Denny, 2007/09/28
- Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull, Joel E. Denny, 2007/09/28
- Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull, Akim Demaille, 2007/09/28
- Re: %push-* -> %define push_pull, Joel E. Denny, 2007/09/28