>>> "Bob" == Bob Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I added the %push-parser option, so that a bison input grammar file can > ask for itself to be a push-parser. What should Bison knows about this? is it just a means to select the right skeleton, or it actually changes something for bison itself? > This simple enhancement to bison already raises questions. A > %push-parse and %pure-parser don't make sense together. The local > variables store in %pure-parser are already stored in the context > that is used when %push-parser is used. Is it OK to have to > competing options like this? They make sense by themselves, but not > together. Is there a precedent in bison that I can simply follow? > Possibly it should be an error to declare both of these? I wouldn't worry too much about useless options and I actually don't: C++ parsers are of course pure, but %pure-parser can be set or not, it doesn't change anything.
