[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: glr.c: Token definitions
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: glr.c: Token definitions |
Date: |
Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:34:34 -0500 (EST) |
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Akim Demaille wrote:
> >>> "Joel" == Joel E Denny <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > If you were to add native bison support to autotools, how would automake
> > know when you need yacc and when you need bison? What if you need both?
> > Should automake recognize a ".bison" suffix as the bison-equivalent of
> > yacc's ".y"? When I write a bison spec that isn't yacc-compatible, it's
> > my habit to use ".bison" anyway... because it just seems more logical.
>
> Why not, that's an idea. But you need to help Automake know what the
> output language is too.
I like the idea of multiple suffixes. Each time you process a file, you
knock off one. For example:
bison -omy_parser.c my_parser.c.bison
gcc -omy_parser my_parser.c
./my_parser
or:
bison -omy_parser.cc my_parser.cc.bison
g++ -omy_parser my_parser.cc
./my_parser
Bison itself could then use the spec's filename to help select a skeleton.
This scheme would scale nicely to support other output languages (Java,
C#, etc) if bison were to include such skeletons one day.
Joel