On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Akim Demaille wrote: > So as far as I'm concerned, I'm ready to switch to a new skeleton. > Now let's focus on making the code nicer to read. But what do the > other members of the team (the Pauls and Joel) think?
Based on what you wrote below, I think you're suggesting temporarily adding a separate undistributed "push.c" for development purposes. After 2.2 is released and we're sure "push.c" is in good shape, we'd rename it "yacc.c" and document it. Am I following? If so, this seems fine to me. > > I've attached push_opt.c, and the new bench.pl script I'm using. You can > > diff it to yours to see the difference. > > I have checked in the bench script in etc/, that will ease the > tracking of changes. I have added other changes on top of yours. > I did not checkin the push parsers because I don't remember whether we > have all the copyright issues settled. If we do, then how about > checking in your skeleton so that we can also easily track the > differences? As long as the tarball is not touched, I see no problem > with adding files even before the 2.2 release. Once you have the push skeleton checked in, I'll find it easier to help out. If I get really turned on to this, I might take on adding push mode to "glr.c". Already, I like Akim's idea of using this feature to facilitate multiple entry points: yyparse_push() to specify the desired entry point followed by a yyparse() to parse the rest of the input from yylex(). Joel
