On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 14:49 -0400, Joel E. Denny wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, tim wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 22:18 -0400, Joel E. Denny wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, tim wrote: > > > > > > > My suggestion is that until the option is fixed > > > > > > > > a) The option produce a warning that it's ignored > > > > b) The documentation should reflect that it doesn't work. > > > > > > It looks like that's been broken for a long time. Did it ever work? Do > > > we need it? Maybe Paul Eggert or Akim Demaille can comment. > > > > > > > --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. > > 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! 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." Tim Josling
