On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 03:11:31PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Bob Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > OK, I see. So, currently, when you choose push-parser, I have the > > skeleton generate a function prototype: > > void yyparse (void *PVVOID); > > > > Do you suggest I keep this functionality, and allow the user to use > > the %parse-param option on top of that? or do you suggest I should > > not automatically generate the "void *PVVOID" parameter, and force the > > user to use %pase-param along with %push-parser? > > I was thinking the latter. It's more type-safe. And it's simpler > not to give the user an option they don't really need.
I'm not sure I like doing it the latter way. This would mean that the user would have to do "%push-parser %parse-param (void *PVVOID)" in order to get a valid push parser, instead of just doing %push-parser. I think this would cause a lot of user confusion. Plus, the yyparse function internally uses the parameter PVVOID, in order to access the push parser. With this information, do you still think I should it the "%push-parser %parse-param (void *PVVOID)" way? This is the last issue I have in regards to finishing up the patch to the testsuite, so any info you can help me with would be great. Thanks, Bob Rossi
