On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Bob Rossi wrote: > > I notice you keep saying *the* pure parser rather than *a* pure parser. > > I think this is the discrepancy between our views. In my view, > > %pure-parser is not a separate kind of parser. Instead, it's one of many > > variables defining the parser output by Bison. In theory, it should be > > possible to have any of the following combinations: > > > > impure LALR(1) pull C > > pure LALR(1) pull C > > impure GLR pull C > > pure GLR pull C > > impure LALR(1) push C > > pure LALR(1) push C > > impure GLR push C > > pure GLR push C > > (Now repeat the list for C++.) > > Hmm, I'm not sure this is true. There is no impure push parser. It's not > possible. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Sure it is. Just convert all the fields of yypstate to global variables. Of course, that would be ugly, so I'm glad you decided not to allow that possibility.
