On 8/5/07, Joel E. Denny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, tim wrote: > > > > > --no-parser would be quite useful to me. I want to use the parse tables > > > > in a lisp program. The less C code I have to filter out the better. > > > > > > Unfortunately, it looks like almost no implementation currently exists. > > > Bison parses --no-parser (but not %no-parser despite being documented) and > > > forgets it. I just had a look in TODO. It looks like Akim was also > > > wondering whether we needed to keep --no-parser. > > Unless I hear objections, I believe I will soon remove what little > implementation and documentation of --no-parser and %no-parser there is. > > > > Would an XML encoding of the .output file suffice for your purposes? > > > I've seen many discussions expressing a desire for that implementation. > > > > XML encoding of .output would do the job fine. A small suggestion - XML > > schemas often tend to be over-engineered - please resist the temptation! > > I don't know when this implementation will happen, but I know many people > have expressed interest. Some people have proposed to work on it, but I > can't recall now what became of those efforts. If I do it, it likely > won't be any time soon. If you're thinking of trying it, you might wish > to poll the mailing lists first to see if someone else has already made > progress. >
Not too long ago (summer 2006 :) we had a long discussion about dumping the parser tables so that other programs (I wanted to do a visual grammar debugger) can use them. I even put forward a (possibly dumb/simplistic) XML representation of the .output file. But there wasn't any feedback on that. I am not an expert in XML, but if someone proposes a good schema I can add the required code to Bison. > > By the way how seriously should I take the warnings not to write my own > > skeleton? How radical are future changes to the interface likely to be? > > > > "These skeletons are the only ones supported by the Bison team. > > Because the interface between skeletons and the bison program is not > > finished, *we are not bound to it*. In particular, Bison is not > > mature enough for us to consider that ``foreign skeletons'' are > > supported." > > There have been changes since the last test release. We have discussed > other possible changes, but I don't know when exactly anyone will get to > them. I recommend taking the above warning seriously. > > > Didn't somebody talk about doing away with m4 ? (may be Paul Eggert ?) thanks, satya
