On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Akim Demaille wrote: > - first, design a true AST for Bison > something to represent the grammar we read. We have more or less > something like this in Bison, but much work is done on it, it's not > "faithful" to the entry, it's already heavily modified. > > Once this AST done, then be ready to process it for real, applying > all the transformations we want (elimination of useless things, > elimination of symbolic names, elimination of mid-rule actions, fuse > the %unions, run semantic checks etc.).
I've often wished that Bison's syntactic and semantic analysis phases were more fully separated. However, this sounds like a major rewrite of vital Bison internals. If someone tackles this over the summer, I hope we can find a way to maintain a stable version of Bison in parallel. > I wish Bison was in C++... Joel, WDYT? This kind of changes would > really benefit from moving to some simple, standard, portable, C++. > Yeah, I know Paul, there's no such thing as portability, just sweat :) With a strong emphasis on *simple* C++, I agree. I don't want to scare away developers by employing hardcore generic programming, multiple inheritance, etc. I imagine a "C++ Don'ts" section evolving in HACKING. I'm not strong with portability issues, so I'll rely on others to figure that part out. _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
