On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 03:37:32PM +0200, uxio prego wrote: > Hi, I’m sorry am involved in this, I reported: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bison/2018-12/msg00029.html > > because to me seemed inconsistent with the online docs: > > http://web.archive.org/web/20181228155051/https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Pure-Decl.html > > So maybe `%pure_parser` should not recommend only > `%define api.pure [full]` but also `%pure-parser`, giving the > programmer a choice depending on what… > exact compliance they want?
I think that recommending `%define api.pure [full]` instead of `%pure_parser` is reasonable. However, to improve compatibility with Berkeley YACC, it would be great if `%pure-parser` is accepted without warnings. Thanks, Peter > > On 30 Jun 2019, at 14:19, Peter Wu <pe...@lekensteyn.nl> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Starting with Bison 3.4, use of '%pure-parser' started emitting > > deprecation warnings, recommending '%define api.pure' instead. The > > latter however is a non-standard directive which is not implemented by > > Berkeley YACC. Berkeley YACC does implement %pure-parser instead: > > https://invisible-island.net/byacc/manpage/yacc.html > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the change to '%define > > api.pure' is purely a stylistic one. In our project, use of '%define > > api.pure [full]' makes no difference in the generated code. > > > > Would it be possible to revert the diagnostic message? -Wno-deprecated > > (added in Bison 2.7) does hide it, but that requires extra custom code. > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Peter Wu > > https://lekensteyn.nl