Re: --no-parser options

[Joel E. Denny]

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.

> 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.