[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: --no-parser options

From: Satya
Subject: Re: --no-parser options
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:53:29 -0500

On 8/5/07, Joel E. Denny <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, tim wrote:
> > > > --no-parser would be quite useful to me. I want to use the parse tables
> > > > in a lisp program. The less C code I have to filter out the better.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, it looks like almost no implementation currently exists.
> > > Bison parses --no-parser (but not %no-parser despite being documented) and
> > > forgets it.  I just had a look in TODO.  It looks like Akim was also
> > > wondering whether we needed to keep --no-parser.
> Unless I hear objections, I believe I will soon remove what little
> implementation and documentation of --no-parser and %no-parser there is.
> > > Would an XML encoding of the .output file suffice for your purposes?
> > > I've seen many discussions expressing a desire for that implementation.
> >
> > XML encoding of .output would do the job fine. A small suggestion - XML
> > schemas often tend to be over-engineered - please resist the temptation!
> I don't know when this implementation will happen, but I know many people
> have expressed interest.  Some people have proposed to work on it, but I
> can't recall now what became of those efforts.  If I do it, it likely
> won't be any time soon.  If you're thinking of trying it, you might wish
> to poll the mailing lists first to see if someone else has already made
> progress.

Not too long ago (summer 2006 :) we had a long discussion about
dumping the parser tables so that other programs (I wanted to do a
visual grammar debugger) can use them. I even put forward a (possibly
dumb/simplistic) XML representation of the .output file. But there
wasn't any feedback on that. I am not an expert in XML, but if someone
proposes a good schema I can add the required code to Bison.

> > By the way how seriously should I take the warnings not to write my own
> > skeleton? How radical are future changes to the interface likely to be?
> >
> > "These skeletons are the only ones supported by the Bison team.
> > Because the interface between skeletons and the bison program is not
> > finished, *we are not bound to it*.  In particular, Bison is not
> > mature enough for us to consider that ``foreign skeletons'' are
> > supported."
> There have been changes since the last test release.  We have discussed
> other possible changes, but I don't know when exactly anyone will get to
> them.  I recommend taking the above warning seriously.

Didn't somebody talk about doing away with m4 ? (may be Paul Eggert ?)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]