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. > 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.
