Hi, Nadim and all,
>> >1/ Please lets do some serious design before we go any further
>> Agreed.
>When do we get to see the first ideas
I tried to start a design talk by mentioning the interfaces to be
defined, and by suggesting implementation steps we could make. Of
course this was just a direction to take.
>> >we can't have a Yacc (the program) or bison parser used
>> multiple times (this is a limitation one might get around) that has much
>to do
>> with naming.
>>
>> Back in my C days I arranged nested yacc parser calls by saving the
>> global values on a stack. Of course this only works for sequential
>> calls ...
>
>Exactly what we do not want to do isn't it ?
I don't think so. It just means if one works around the common yacc
globals, it could be possible to make parsers run independently in the
same process.
We process yaccs results by perl to pass it to C translation - what
about replacing globals by, let's say, static function vars before
passing yaccs output to the compiler?
>I agree that yacc should also be present in our toolbox, then ,when I think
>about it, why should it?
>I need multiple parser, do I need to wrestle whith yacc for that?
In my eyes, the problem is existing code and parser generator
installation. It would be fine to be able to reuse existing yacc
grammars as well as Parse::Yapp ones. Yacc is very popular and always
there (on UNIX) - regardless of lemons popularity which I cannot
estimate. I do not vote against lemon - it would be great to support it
as well. I'm just saying it would be pity if yacc would be missed.
>> >Inline::Pbyacc ...
>There are few negative points with PByacc:
>-interpreted
>-uses Fstream module instead of IO
>-no documentation
>-no home to get the latest version
>-placement of generated files is heratic
>
>Good point : it ALL perl
This list makes me thinking of Parse::Yapp. All Perl, interpreted,
documented, one maintained version, available via CPAN, integrates well
with Perl applications, generated files are Perl modules ready to use.
Please do not misunderstand my question, it's great things begin to
work here, I'm just unsure if using Byacc gives us(ers) an advantage.
Years ago I exactly experienced what you describe, it was not easy to
get a byacc version and to deal with it. Maybe I'm missing a point?
>I guess Jochen is right, we want compiled parsers even if we must shuffle
>data forth and back.
I really think so.
Greetings
Jochen
