[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: |
Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:30:51 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:55:08PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Bob Rossi <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > If we force the user to define that function, it add's an unnecessary
> > complication to the push parser. That is, the user is mostly likely
> > going to call yypushparse, and not care about yyparse at all. However,
> > yyparse is the function causing the user to define the yypushlex
> > function. What do you think I should do to resolve this?
>
> Ah, sorry, I didn't understand this issue at all.
>
> It sounds to me like the push parser shouldn't define yyparse. That
> way, the user shouldn't have to care about any lexer function.
I agree. Akim, you were the main advocate for adding this functionality. Can
you see any other solution to the problem besides remove yyparse from
the generated output?
Thanks,
Bob Rossi
- Re: push parser, (continued)
- Re: push parser, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/27
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/09/27
- Re: push parser, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/27
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/09/27
- Re: push parser, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/28
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/09/29
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/09/29
- Re: push parser, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/29
- Re: push parser, Bob Rossi, 2006/09/29
- Re: push parser, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/29
- Re: push parser,
Bob Rossi <=
Re: push parser, Frans Englich, 2006/09/21