>>> "rms" == Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given the current spreading of C++, do you object (pun not yet > intended) to using it for Bison? > I don't think Bison should be written in C++. C is clearer and > simpler. Anyway, Bison already works. It would be a waste to rewrite > Bison into a different language, even into Lisp, given that it works > the way it is. I am not proposing to rewrite Bison in C++, since Bison, being written in C, is already in C++. I'm asking if we can use the rest of the language. I would like to use both hands. There are many places where *simple* C++ would dramatically simplify Bison. For instance our symbols, terminal or not, are a typical simple hierarchy. As is written today, it's dark magic playing with integers. Our task would also be much simpler if we could use existing list support, rather that implementing it each time we need a list of a different kind of struct. C++ is a complex language, with lots of dark corners, agreed. Lisp, not statically typed, is unsafe and painfully slow, agreed. C, a portable assembly language not strongly typed, is dangerous, agreed. But each language if properly used considerably improves the extendability and maintainability of some projects. In the very case of Bison the base code would be much shorter, much simpler. As of today, C makes it hard for contributors to go into bison (ask Satya). > There is so much else we can do that will really make a difference > for the users. Let's do that instead. My point, precisely: to give more to the user, we should give away less time to C. PS/ Anyway I would not move to C++ without the consent of my fellows.
