[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: push parser
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: push parser |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:32:39 -0500 (EST) |
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > I notice you keep saying *the* pure parser rather than *a* pure parser.
> > I think this is the discrepancy between our views. In my view,
> > %pure-parser is not a separate kind of parser. Instead, it's one of many
> > variables defining the parser output by Bison. In theory, it should be
> > possible to have any of the following combinations:
> >
> > impure LALR(1) pull C
> > pure LALR(1) pull C
> > impure GLR pull C
> > pure GLR pull C
> > impure LALR(1) push C
> > pure LALR(1) push C
> > impure GLR push C
> > pure GLR push C
> > (Now repeat the list for C++.)
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure this is true. There is no impure push parser. It's not
> possible. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Sure it is. Just convert all the fields of yypstate to global variables.
Of course, that would be ugly, so I'm glad you decided not to allow that
possibility.
- Re: push parser, (continued)
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/25
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/25
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/26
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/31
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/31
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/31
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/15
- Re: push parser,
Joel E. Denny <=
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/08
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/08
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/08
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/08
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/08
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/08
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/08
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/10
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/12
- Re: push parser, Paul Eggert, 2006/12/12