[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: push parser
From: |
Bob Rossi |
Subject: |
Re: push parser |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:40:10 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 |
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:39:12AM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 09:32:29PM -0500, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> >
> > > Bob and Paul, I can't seem to communicate this adequately in English, so
> > > I
> > > think the best way to explain my view is to write the patch that
> > > implements it. It should be very short, but it may be a few hours before
> > > I can get some time. Can we pick up the discussion again after that?
> >
> > The patch is below, but I'll wait for both of your reviews before
> > committing it. It's very short. Notice that for push parsers now:
>
> Well, it looks fine to me. I have the same hesitations now that I had
> before you coded the patch. I think you did a reasonable job explaining
> your position previously. I want to make it clear, I don't have enough
> experience with bison to give this patch a proper review. I'm not sure
> of the long term effects of such a change.
>
> Below was my main issue with the patch which I meant to respond
> publically,
>
> > > How are we going to handle the case when the push parser does not want
> > >
> > > to generate code that is in the pure_if check? That was my primary
> > >
> > > concern from the beginning. Setting the pure option whenever push-parser
> > >
> > > is set forces the rest of bison to loose the fact that it's generating a
> > >
> > > push parser, and not a pure parser. (Now I understand that push parsers
> > >
> > > are pure, but I'm talking about the fact that there are pure_if
> > >
> > > statements that may not actually want to be true in the push mode).
> > >
>
>
> > b4_pure_if([
> >
> > code for pure and push
> >
> > b4_push_if([], [[code for pure but not push]])])
> >
> >
> > So far, this hasn't happened. If it does, I don't think it will be often.
> >
>
> So, if you are happy with this issue, and Paul is also, then so am I!
> I do want to mention that I enjoy seeing the problems that this patch
> solves.
>
> BTW, after knowing all of this, if I were to write the patch, I would do
> it this way. I would leave the pure-parser option set to false. But I
> would write a new macro, b4_pure_or_push (or something), and replace all
> calls to b4_pure that are supposed to be b4_pure_or_push. That would
> leave bison with the ability to perform all combinations of checks,
> which I don't think it can currently do now.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Bob Rossi
- Re: push parser, (continued)
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/06
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/15
- Re: push parser, Paul Eggert, 2006/12/15
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/15
- Re: push parser, Paul Eggert, 2006/12/15
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/15
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: push parser,
Bob Rossi <=
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/16
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/16
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/17
- Re: push parser, Paul Eggert, 2006/12/16
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/16
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/16
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/18
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/18
- Re: push parser, Joel E. Denny, 2006/12/18
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/12/18