[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: I need simpler examples (was: RE: Enhancement request: enabling Vari

From: Uxio Prego
Subject: Re: I need simpler examples (was: RE: Enhancement request: enabling Variant in C parsers)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:06:16 +0100

Hi, judging these docs and multiple changelog entries mentioning
`%define api.pure` as a replacement for `%pure-parser`, and the
latter being turned to wrapper on the former at some point, etc.;

I would expect that tests/input.at recommend, for `%pure_parser`,
`%define api.pure` optionally `%define api.pure full`, instead of
`%pure-parser`? Around line 2372, that’s the test side. I don't
know where is the non-test code side of that, and I don't feel that
much momentum to find out and propose a patch.


> On 8 Dec 2018, at 07:19, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi!
>> Le 7 déc. 2018 à 20:30, Uxio Prego <address@hidden> a écrit :
>> I don't know of this division of parsers in pure and impure.
>> Are pure approaches like GLR while LALR(k) are impure?
> No, it's unrelated to the parsing technology, it's only a question
> of API: whether you exchange information with the scanner via global
> variables, or additional arguments.
> https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Pure-Decl.html

reply via email to

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